[Gluster-users] Self-heal impact on performance: is there a definitive answer?

Rosario Esposito resposit at na.infn.it
Thu Mar 24 23:12:49 UTC 2011

Hi, I have the same problem.
I have 2 servers, exporting a replicated gluster volume to 3 gluster 
native clients. I use the gluster volume as a repository for qcow2 (kvm) 
virtual machine images. The virtual machines runs on the gluster clients 
with no problems and live migration works great.
If one of the 2 servers goes offline and then comes back, all the 
virtual machines are stuck until self healing completes because of high 
load on servers during files reconstruction.
Is there a chance to make self healing less invasive ?

Cheers, Rosario

Il 24/03/2011 23:56, R.C. ha scritto:
> Hi to everyone.
> Experimenting with GlusterFS, my first intent is to evaluate the
> possibility to create an affordable SAN storage for various environments
> (datastore, VM disk images and so on...).
> Looking at my tests results, my first concern is about system
> performance during self-heal process.
> In a replica 3 volume (or replica 2, by the way), when a node goes
> offline (wherever the problem lies) and than comes back, the self-heal
> process eats a lot of system resources but, and this is the main
> problem, the volume becomes quite unusable.
> During self-heal time, writing data to the cluster (say thru SAMBA)
> reaches speeds in the 100KB/s order: quite unacceptable for a SAN
> storage (neither for a simple NAS storage, anyway).
> Is there a way to "move to background" the self-heal process and retain
> client writing (and reading) speeds acceptable?
> Raf
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list