[Gluster-users] Shard Volume testing (3.7.5)

[Lindsay Mathieson]

On 28 October 2015 at 17:03, Krutika Dhananjay <kdhananj at redhat.com> wrote:

> So sharding also helps with better disk utilization in
> distributed-replicated volumes for large files (like VM images).
> ..

There are other long-term benefits one could reap from using sharding: for
> instance, for someone who might want to use tiering in VM store use-case,
> having sharding will be beneficial in terms of only migrating the shards
> between hot and cold tiers, as opposed to moving large files in full, even
> if only a small portion of the file is changed/accessed. :)
>


Interesting points, thanks.


>
>
>> Yes. So Paul Cuzner and Satheesaran who have been testing sharding here
>> have reported better write performance with 512M shards. I'd be interested
>> to know what you feel about performance with relatively larger shards
>> (think 512M).
>>
>
> Seq Read speeds basically tripled, and seq writes improved to the limit of
> the network connection.
>
>
> OK. And what about the data heal performance with 512M shards?
> Satisfactory?
>


Easily satisfactory, a bit slower than the 4MB shard but still way faster
than a full multi GB file heal :)


Something I have noticed, is that the heal info (gluster volume heal
<datastore> info) can be very slow to return, as in many 10's of seconds -
is there a way to speed that up?

It would be every useful if there was a command that quickly gave
summary/progress status, e.g "There are <X> shards to be healed"


-- 
Lindsay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20151028/94b2f919/attachment.html>