On 02/21/2011 12:47 PM, Joe Landman wrote: > On 02/21/2011 12:45 PM, Steve Wilson wrote: >> 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: > > As a sanity check, do test your date stamps across the servers. We > found *significant* issues when they drifted. > > Thanks, Joe. Both servers use NTP against the same subnet router so it's unlikely that they had a time discrepancy. I just checked the two servers and their times are consistent with each other at the moment. Steve
