[Gluster-users] default cluster.stripe-block-size for striped volumes on 3.0.x vs 3.3 beta (128kb), performance change if i reduce to a smaller block size?

[Sabuj Pattanayek]

Well, I'm still getting weird results with ext4 :

gluster1:/pirstripe    34T   88G   34T   1% /pirstripe
gluster1:/pirdist      34T   88G   34T   1% /pirdist

[root at gluster1 ~]# du -sh /pirstripe /pirdist
10G     /pirstripe
38G     /pirdist

10 * 5 + 38 = 88,  but not 10 + 38

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Sabuj Pattanayek <sabujp at gmail.com> wrote:
> This seems to be a bug in XFS as Joe pointed out :
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2011-06/msg00233.html
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6940516/create-sparse-file-with-alternate-data-and-hole-on-ext3-and-xfs
>
> It seems to be there in XFS available natively in RHEL6 and RHEL5
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Sabuj Pattanayek <sabujp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been migrating data from an old striped 3.0.x gluster install to
>> a 3.3 beta install. I copied all the data to a regular XFS partition
>> (4K blocksize) from the old gluster striped volume and it totaled
>> 9.2TB. With the old setup I used the following option in a "volume
>> stripe" block in the configuration file in a client :
>>
>> volume stripe
>>  type cluster/stripe
>>  option block-size 2MB
>>  subvolumes ....
>> end-volume
>>
>> IIRC, the data was using up about the same space on the old striped
>> volume (9.2T) . While copying the data back to the new v3.3 striped
>> gluster volume on the same 5 servers/same brick filesystems (XFS w/4K
>> blocksize), I noticed that the amount stored on disk increased by 5x.
>>
>> Currently if I do a du -sh on the gluster fuse mount of the new
>> striped volume I get 4.3TB (I haven't finished copying all 9.2TB of
>> data over, stopped it prematurely because it's going to use up all the
>> physical disk it seems if I let it keep going). However, if I do a du
>> -sh at the filesystem / brick level on each of the 5 directories on
>> the 5 servers that store the striped data, it shows that each one is
>> storing 4.1TB. So basically, 4.3TB of data from a 4K block size FS
>> took up 20.5TB of storage on a 128KB block size striped gluster
>> volume. What is the correlation between the " option block-size"
>> setting on client configs in cluster/stripe blocks in 3.0.x vs the
>> cluster.stripe-block-size parameter in 3.3? If these settings are
>> talking about what I think they mean, then basically a file that is 1M
>> in size would be written out to the stripe in 128KB chunks across N
>> servers, i.e. 128/N KB of data per brick? What happens when the stripe
>> block size isn't evenly divisible by N (e.g. 128/5 = 25.6). If the old
>> block-size and new stripe-block-size options are describing the same
>> thing, then wouldn't a 2MB block size from the old config cause more
>> storage to be used up vs a 128KB block size?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sabuj