|
On 11/18/2014 04:14 PM, Lindsay
Mathieson wrote:
No, I was not being sarcastic :-). I am genuinely wondering why it is not reported till now. May be Joe will have more inputs there, that is the reason I CCed him.On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:36:19 PM Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:On 11/18/2014 01:17 PM, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:On 18 November 2014 17:40, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:However given the files are tens of GB in size, won't it thrash my network?Yes you are right. I wonder why thrashing of the network is never reported till now.Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not :) But from what I've observed, sync operations seem to self throttle, I've not seen them use more than 50% of bandwidth, and given most setups have a dedicated network for the servers maybe they just don't notice if it takes a while? I still need to think about how best to solve this problem.Setup a array of queues for self healing, sorted by size maybe?Let me tell you a bit more about this issue: there are two processes which heal the VM images: 1) self-heal-daemon. 2) Mount process. Self-heal daemon heals one VM image at a time. But mount process triggers self-heals for all the opened files(VM image is nothing but an opened file from filesystem's perspective) when a brick goes down and comes backup.Thanks, interesting to know.So we need to come up with a scheme to throttle self-heals on the mount point to prevent this issue. I will update you as soon as I come up with a fix. This should not be hard to do. Need some time to choose the best approach. Thanks a lot for bringing up this issue.Thanks you for looking at it! Cheers, |
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
