On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Serkan Çoban <cobanserkan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:It is the over all time, 8TB data disk healed 2x faster in 8+2 configuration.Wow, that is counter intuitive for me. I will need to explore about this to find out why that could be. Thanks a lot for this feedback!
From memory I remember you said you have a lot of small files hosted on the volume, right? It could be because of the bug https://review.gluster.org/17151 is fixing. That is the only reason I could guess right now. We will try to test this kind of case if you could give us a bit more details about average file-size/depth of directories etc to simulate similar looking directory structure.
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
<pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Serkan Çoban <cobanserkan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration.
>> We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal
>> speed.
>> I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on
>> 8+2 is faster by 2x.
>
>
> As you increase number of nodes that are participating in an EC set number
> of parallel heals increase. Is the heal speed you saw improved per file or
> the over all time it took to heal the data?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just suggestions.
>> > You can create 16+3 volume without any issue.
>> >
>> > Ashish
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.tech@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM
>> > Subject: disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the
>> > RHES
>> > guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. Is
>> > there
>> > any reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of 2,
>> > but
>> > as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with 16+3.
>> > Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> > Alastair
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pranith
--Pranith
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
