Vijay,
But it seems like self-heal's fd is able to perform 'writes'. Shouldn't it be uniform if it is the problem with xfs?
Pranith
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Fabio Rosati" <fabio.rosati@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx List" <gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:23:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Replication delay
>
> On 01/24/2014 09:24 PM, Fabio Rosati wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The block size is the same, 4096 bytes.
> > I did some other investigation and it seems the problem happens only with
> > VM disk images internally formatted with a blocksize of 1024 bytes. There
> > are no problems with disk images formatted with a block size on 4096
> > bytes. Anyway, I don't know if this is a coincidence.
> >
> > Do you think this could be the origin of the problem? If so, how can I
> > solve it?
> > In the links posted by Vijay someone suggests to start the VM with cache !=
> > none but this will prevent live migration, AFAIK.
> > Another solution may be to recreate the volume backing it with XFS
> > partitions formatted with a different block size (smaller? 1024 bytes?),
> > this would be a painful option, but if this will solve the problem, I go
> > for it.
> >
>
> A lower sector size (512) for xfs has been observed to be useful in
> overcoming this problem.
>
> Another solution might be to use logical_block_size=4096 option as
> referred here [1].
>
> -Vijay
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997839#c7
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
