[Gluster-devel] missing files
xhernandez at datalab.es
Wed Feb 11 11:53:27 UTC 2015
Some time ago I had a similar performance problem (with 3.4 if I
remember correctly): a just created volume started to work fine, but
after some time using it performance was worse. Removing all files from
the volume didn't improve the performance again.
The only way I had to recover a performance similar to the initial one
without recreating the volume was to remove all volume contents and also
delete all 256 .glusterfs/xx/ directories from all bricks.
The backend filesystem was XFS.
Could you try if this is the same case ?
On 02/11/2015 12:22 PM, David F. Robinson wrote:
> Don't think it is the underlying file system. /data/brickxx is the underlying xfs. Performance to this is fine. When I created a volume it just puts the data in /data/brick/test2. The underlying filesystem shouldn't know/care that it is in a new directory.
> Also, if I create a /data/brick/test2 volume and put data on it, it gets slow in gluster. But, writing to /data/brick is still fine. And, after test2 gets slow, I can create a /data/test3 volume that is empty and its speed is fine.
> My knowledge is admittedly very limited here, but I don't see how it could be the underlying filesystem if the slowdown only occurs on the gluster mount and not on the underlying xfs filesystem.
> David (Sent from mobile)
> David F. Robinson, Ph.D.
> President - Corvid Technologies
> 704.799.6944 x101 [office]
> 704.252.1310 [cell]
> 704.799.7974 [fax]
> David.Robinson at corvidtec.com
>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:18 AM, Justin Clift <justin at gluster.org> wrote:
>>> On 11 Feb 2015, at 03:06, Shyam <srangana at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 2) We ran an strace of tar and also collected io-stats outputs from these volumes, both show that create and mkdir is slower on slow as compared to the fast volume. This seems to be the overall reason for slowness
>> Any idea's on "why" the create and mkdir is slower?
>> Wondering if it's a case of underlying filesystem parameters (for the bricks)
>> + maybe physical storage structure having become badly optimised over time.
>> eg if its on spinning rust, not ssd, and sector placement is now bad
>> Any idea if there are tools that can analyse this kind of thing? eg meta
>> data placement / fragmentation / on a drive for XFS/ext4
>> + Justin
>> GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org
>> An open source, distributed file system scaling to several
>> petabytes, and handling thousands of clients.
>> My personal twitter: twitter.com/realjustinclift
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
More information about the Gluster-devel