The performance needs to be compared between the two in a real environment.
For example I have a system where xfsdump takes something like 4 hours
for a complete dump to /dev/null but a "find . -type f > /dev/null"
takes well over a day.
So it seems that xfsdump is very disk read efficient.
Another thing to take into consideration is the latency.
If the hosts are on the same lan then life is good but if the systems
are milliseconds or more away from each other then you start getting
side effects from BDP(bandwidth delay product) and this can quickly take
a multi-gigabit link and turn it into a multi-megabit link.
BBCP supports piping data into and out of the program allowing for
better use of the available bandwidth.
So that may be another way to get better performance out of multiple
links or links with latency issues.
On 4/9/19 11:34 AM, Strahil wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I have been left with the impression that cluster heal is multi-process , multi-connection event and would benefit from a bonding like balance-alb.
I don't have much experience with xfsdump, but it looks like a single process that uses single connection and thus only LACP can be beneficial.
Am I wrong?
Best Regards,
Strahil NikolovOn Apr 9, 2019 07:10, Aravinda <avishwan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 09:01 -0400, Tom Fite wrote:
Thanks for the idea, Poornima. Testing shows that xfsdump and
xfsrestore is much faster than rsync since it handles small files
much better. I don't have extra space to store the dumps but I was
able to figure out how to pipe the xfsdump and restore via ssh. For
anyone else that's interested:
On source machine, run:
xfsdump -J - /dev/mapper/[vg]-[brick] | ssh root@[destination fqdn]
xfsrestore -J - [/path/to/brick]
Nice. Thanks for sharing
-Tom
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:56 PM Poornima Gurusiddaiah <
pgurusid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You could also try xfsdump and xfsrestore if you brick filesystem
is xfs and the destination disk can be attached locally? This will
be much faster.
Regards,
Poornima
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 12:05 AM Tom Fite <tomfite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
I have a very large (65 TB) brick in a replica 2 volume that
needs to be re-copied from scratch. A heal will take a very long
time with performance degradation on the volume so I investigated
using rsync to do the brunt of the work.
The command:
rsync -av -H -X --numeric-ids --progress server1:/data/brick1/gv0
/data/brick1/
Running with -H assures that the hard links in .glusterfs are
preserved, and -X preserves all of gluster's extended attributes.
I've tested this on my test environment as follows:
1. Stop glusterd and kill procs
2. Move brick volume to backup dir
3. Run rsync
4. Start glusterd
5. Observe gluster status
All appears to be working correctly. Gluster status reports all
bricks online, all data is accessible in the volume, and I don't
see any errors in the logs.
Anybody else have experience trying this?
Thanks
-Tom
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
--
regards
Aravinda
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
--
Alvin Starr || land: (905)513-7688
Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133
alvin@xxxxxxxxxx ||
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
