The objective is to create a redundant system. Shouldn't gluster be writing on all 6 nodes simultaneously rather than sequentially? Else it would seem like a rather poor choice for highly redundant systems. Regards -- David Pusch On Mittwoch, 10. August 2011 at 14:37, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:22:55PM +0200, David Pusch wrote: > > > we now did another test where we mounted the Volume on the client and shut > > down all Servers but one. We then transferred a 1 GB test file to the Volume. > > The transfer took around 10 seconds. We then brought up another server from the > > Cluster and again transferred a 1 GB file. Transfer time now was roughly 20 > > seconds. We proceeded in this manner for the last two servers, and each time > > the transfer time increased by ca. 10 seconds. > > > an 18 brick distributed replicated Volume with a replica 6 setting. > > David, > > Why "replica 6"? That means you're keeping a copy of each file physically on > each server. So if writing the file file to one takes 10 seconds, writing > the file to a second takes another 10 seconds, and so on, that kind of makes > sense. You can't transfer a single file to two places as fast as to one. > > Having more than two copies of any single file is unusual. Having more than > three - I'm not sure why anyone would do that for local storage. > > Whit -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110810/466a264d/attachment.htm>
