Thanks for the response. Yes, only gluster bricks on the disk. I know about the large count of small files issue, but we changed how we organized the files. Each directory has about 30 files in it. Am I missing something? On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Jules Wang <lancelotds at 163.com> wrote: > Hi John: > Glusterfs is not designed for handling large count small files, > because it has no meta data server, every lookup operation cost a lot in > your situation. > The disk usage is abnormal, does your disk only have gluster bricks? > > Best Regards. > Jules Wang > > > > > At 2012-11-02 08:03:21,"Jonathan Lefman" <jonathan.lefman at essess.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am having problems with painfully slow directory listings on a freshly > created replicated volume. The configuration is as follows: 2 nodes with > 3 replicated drives each. The total volume capacity is 5.6T. We would > like to expand the storage capacity much more, but first we need to figure > this problem out. > > Soon after loading up about 100 MB of small files (about 300kb each), the > drive usage is at 1.1T. I am not sure if this to be expected. The main > problem is that directory listing (ls or find) takes a very long time. The > CPU usage on the nodes is high for each of the glusterfsd processes - 3 on > each machine 54%, 43%, and 25% per core is an example of the usage. Memory > is very low for each process. It is incredibly difficult to diagnose this > issue. We have wiped previous gluster installs, all directories, and mount > points as well as reformatting the disks. Each drive is formatted with > ext4. > > Has anyone had a similar result? Any ideas on how to debug this one? > > Thank you, > > Jon > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20121101/494c936d/attachment.html>