[Gluster-users] Perfomance issue on a 90+% full file system

[Franco Broi]

Not an issue for us, were at 92% on an 800TB distributed volume, 16
bricks spread across 4 servers. Lookups can be a bit slow but raw IO
hasn't changed.

On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 09:16 +1000, Dan Mons wrote: 
> On 7 October 2014 08:56, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com> wrote:
> > I can't think of a good reason for such a steep drop-off in GlusterFS.
> > Sure, performance should degrade somewhat due to fragmenting, but not
> > suddenly.  It's not like Lustre, which would do massive preallocation
> > and fall apart when there was no longer enough space to do that.  It
> > might be worth measuring average latency at the local-FS level, to see
> > if the problem is above or below that line.
> 
> Happens like clockwork for us.  The moment we get alerts saying the
> file system has hit 90%, we get a flood of support tickets about
> performance.
> 
> It happens to a lesser degree on standard CentOS NAS units running XFS
> we have around the place.  But again, I see the same sort of thing on
> any file system (vendor supplied, self-built, OS and FS agnostic).
> And yes, it's measurable (Munin graphs show it off nicely).
> 
> -Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users