On 02/21/2011 09:54 AM, paul simpson wrote: > hi fabricio, > > many thanks for your input. indeed i am using xfs - but that seems to be > mentioned in the gluster docs without any mention of problems. we > benchmarked xfs vs ext4 - and found that xfs to be much better at dealing > with the bulk of our data - hi-def frames ~3-10M each - and large > geometry/particle/volume files. 10M-200M. so, i'm keen to hear from anyone > abotu xfs's suitability for gluster storage... > > as for file size; my understanding is that a distributed file system > performance only really kicks in when your dealing with large>1M files. > however, is dealing with small files meant to be unreliable with > locking/access errors? > We had trouble with reliability for small, actively-accessed files on a distribute-replicate volume in both GlusterFS 3.11 and 3.12. It seems that the replicated servers would eventually get out of sync with each other on these kinds of files. For a while, we dropped replication and only ran the volume as distributed. This has worked reliably for the past week or so without any errors that we were seeing before: no such file, invalid argument, etc. Steve > again thanks - and i look forward to hearing if gluster is able > to reliably serve svn working directories and cope with locks... > > regards, > > paul > >
