I should have also said that my volume is working well now and all is well. -Jon On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Jonathan Lefman <jonathan.lefman at essess.com>wrote: > Thank you Brian. I'm happy to hear that this behavior is not typical. I am > now using xfs on all of my drives. I also wiped out the entire > /etc/glusterd directory for good measure. I bet that there was residual > information from a previous attempt at a gluster volume that must have > caused problems. Or moving to xfs from ext4 is an amazing fix, but I think > this is less likely. > > I appreciate your time responding to me. > > -Jon > On Nov 2, 2012 4:44 AM, "Brian Candler" <B.Candler at pobox.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 08:03:21PM -0400, Jonathan Lefman wrote: >> > Soon after loading up about 100 MB of small files (about 300kb each), >> > the drive usage is at 1.1T. >> >> That is very odd. What do you get if you run du and df on the individual >> bricks themselves? 100MB is only ~330 files of 300KB each. >> >> Did you specify any special options to mkfs.ext4? Maybe -l 512 would help, >> as the xattrs are more likely to sit within the indoes themselves. >> >> If you start everything from scratch, it would be interesting to see df >> stats when the filesystem is empty. It may be that a huge amount of space >> has been allocated to inodes. If you expect most of your files >16KB then >> you could add -i 16384 to mkfs.ext4 to reduce the space reserved for >> inodes. >> But using xfs would be better, as it doesn't reserve any space for inodes, >> it allocates it dynamically. >> >> Ignore the comment that glusterfs is "not designed for handling large >> count >> small files" - 300KB is not small. >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20121102/edcd4a10/attachment.html>
