Shyam,
You asked me to stop/start the slow volume to see if it fixed the timing
issue. I stopped/started homegfs_backup (the production volume with 40+
TB) and it didn't make it faster. I didn't stop/start the fast volume
to see if it made it slower. I just did that and sent out an email. I
saw a similar result as Pranith.
however, I tried this test below and saw no issues. So, i don't know
why restart the older volume of test3brick slowed it down but the test
below shows no slowdown.
#... Create 2-new bricks
gluster volume create test4brick
gfsib01bkp.corvidtec.com:/data/brick01bkp/test4brick
gfsib01bkp.corvidtec.com:/data/brick02bkp/test4brick
gluster volume create test5brick
gfsib01bkp.corvidtec.com:/data/brick01bkp/test5brick
gfsib01bkp.corvidtec.com:/data/brick02bkp/test5brick
gluster volume start test4brick
gluster volume start test5brick
mount /test4brick
mount /test5brick
cp /root/boost_1_57_0.tar /test4brick
cp /root/boost_1_57_0.tar /test5brick
#... Stop/start test4brick to see if this causes a timing issue
umount /test4brick
gluster volume stop test4brick
gluster volume start test4brick
mount /test4brick
#... Run test on both new bricks
cd /test4brick
time tar -xPf boost_1_57_0.tar; time rm -rf boost_1_57_0
real 1m29.712s
user 0m0.415s
sys 0m2.772s
real 0m18.866s
user 0m0.087s
sys 0m0.556s
cd /test5brick
time tar -xPf boost_1_57_0.tar; time rm -rf boost_1_57_0
real 1m28.243s
user 0m0.366s
sys 0m2.502s
real 0m18.193s
user 0m0.075s
sys 0m0.543s
#... Repeat again after stop/start of test4brick
umount /test4brick
gluster volume stop test4brick
gluster volume start test4brick
mount /test4brick
cd /test4brick
time tar -xPf boost_1_57_0.tar; time rm -rf boost_1_57_0
real 1m25.277s
user 0m0.466s
sys 0m3.107s
real 0m16.575s
user 0m0.084s
sys 0m0.577s
------ Original Message ------
From: "Shyam" <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Justin Clift"
<justin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "David F. Robinson"
<david.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2/12/2015 10:46:14 AM
Subject: Re: missing files
On 02/12/2015 06:22 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 02/12/2015 03:05 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 02/12/2015 09:14 AM, Justin Clift wrote:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 03:02, Shyam <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/11/2015 08:28 AM, David F. Robinson wrote:
Just to increase confidence performed one more test. Stopped the
volumes
and re-started. Now on both the volumes, the numbers are almost same:
[root@gqac031 gluster-mount]# time rm -rf boost_1_57_0 ; time tar xf
boost_1_57_0.tar.gz
real 1m15.074s
user 0m0.550s
sys 0m4.656s
real 2m46.866s
user 0m5.347s
sys 0m16.047s
[root@gqac031 gluster-mount]# cd /gluster-emptyvol/
[root@gqac031 gluster-emptyvol]# ls
boost_1_57_0.tar.gz
[root@gqac031 gluster-emptyvol]# time tar xf boost_1_57_0.tar.gz
real 2m31.467s
user 0m5.475s
sys 0m15.471s
gqas015.sbu.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com:testvol on /gluster-mount type
fuse.glusterfs (rw,default_permissions,allow_other,max_read=131072)
gqas015.sbu.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com:emotyvol on /gluster-emptyvol type
fuse.glusterfs (rw,default_permissions,allow_other,max_read=131072)
If I remember right, we performed a similar test on David's setup, but
I believe there was no significant performance gain there. David could
you clarify?
Just so we know where we are headed :)
Shyam
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
