<html><body><div style="font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Kyle Harris" <kyle.harris98@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Ravishankar N" <ravishankar@redhat.com>, gluster-users@gluster.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Saturday, January 9, 2016 9:14:36 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gluster-users] High I/O And Processor Utilization<br><div><br></div><div dir="ltr">I can make the change to sharding and then export/import the VMs to give it a try. So just to be clear, I am using v3.7.6-1. Is that sufficient? I would rather not have to compile from source and would probably wait for the next rpms if that is needed.<div><br></div><div>Also, given the output below. what would you recommend I use for the shard block size and furthermore, how do you determine this?</div><div><br><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 53G Jan 9 09:34 03070877-9cf4-4d55-a66c-fbd3538eedb9.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1M Jan 8 12:27 0b16f938-e859-41e3-bb33-fefba749a578.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.6G Jan 7 16:39 3d77b504-3109-4c34-a803-e9236e35d8bf.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 497M Jan 7 17:27 715ddb6c-67af-4047-9fa0-728019b49d63.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 341M Jan 7 16:17 72a33878-59f7-4f6e-b3e1-e137aeb19ced.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1G Jan 9 09:34 7b7c8d8a-d223-4a47-bd35-8d72ee6927b9.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8.1M Dec 28 11:07 8b49029c-7e55-4569-bb73-88c3360d6a0c.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.2G Jan 8 12:25 8c524ed9-e382-40cd-9361-60c23a2c1ae2.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3.2G Jan 9 09:34 930196aa-0b85-4482-97ab-3d05e9928884.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.0G Jan 8 12:27 940ee016-8288-4369-9fb8-9c64cb3af256.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12G Jan 9 09:34 b0cdf43c-7e6b-44bf-ab2d-efb14e9d2156.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6.8G Jan 7 16:39 b803f735-cf7f-4568-be83-aedd746f6cec.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1G Jan 9 09:34 be18622b-042a-48cb-ab94-51541ffe24eb.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.6G Jan 9 09:34 c2645723-efd9-474b-8cce-fe07ac9fbba9.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1G Jan 9 09:34 d2873b74-f6be-43a9-bdf1-276761e3e228.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.4G Jan 7 17:27 db881623-490d-4fd8-8f12-9c82eea3c53c.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1M Jan 8 12:33 eb21c443-6381-4a25-ac7c-f53a82289f10.vhd</div><div>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 13G Jan 7 16:39 f6b9cfba-09ba-478d-b8e0-543dd631e275.vhd</div></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks again.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Kyle,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Based on the testing we have done from our end, we've found that 512MB is a good number that is neither too big nor too small,</div><div>and provides good performance both on the IO side and with respect to self-heal.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-Krutika<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Ravishankar N <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ravishankar@redhat.com" target="_blank">ravishankar@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><span class="">
<div>On 01/09/2016 07:42 AM, Krutika
Dhananjay wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote><div style="font-family:garamond,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt;color:#000000"><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010ff;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><b>From: </b>"Ravishankar
N" <a href="mailto:ravishankar@redhat.com" target="_blank"><ravishankar@redhat.com></a><br><b>To: </b>"Kyle Harris" <a href="mailto:kyle.harris98@gmail.com" target="_blank"><kyle.harris98@gmail.com></a>,
<a href="mailto:gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:06:04 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gluster-users] High I/O And Processor
Utilization<br><div><br></div><div>On 01/09/2016 01:44 AM, Kyle
Harris wrote:<br></div><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">It’s been a while since I last ran
GlusterFS so I thought I might give it another try here at
home in my lab. I am using the 3.7 branch on 2 systems
with a 3<sup>rd</sup> being an arbiter node. Much like
the last time I tried GlusterFS, I keep running into
issues with the glusterfsd process eating up so many
resources that the systems sometimes become all but
unusable. A quick Google search tells me I am not the
only one to run into this issue but I have yet to find a
cure. The last time I ran GlusterFS, it was to host web
sites and I just chalked the problem up to a large number
of small files. This time, I am using it to host VM’s and
there are only 7 of them and while they are running, they
are not doing anything else.</p></blockquote><br>
The performance improvements for self-heal are still a
(stalled_at_the_moment)-work-in-progress. But for VM use
cases, you can turn on sharding [1], which will drastically
reduce data self-heal time. Why don't you give it a spin on
your lab setup and let us know how it goes? You might have to
create the VMs again though since only the files that are
created after enabling the feature will be sharded.<br><br>
-Ravi<br><br>
[1] <a href="http://blog.gluster.org/2015/12/introducing-shard-translator/" target="_blank">http://blog.gluster.org/2015/12/introducing-shard-translator/</a><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Kyle,<br></div><div>I would recommend you to use glusterfs-3.7.6 if you intend
to try sharding, because it contains some crucial bug fixes.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote>
<br></span>
If you're trying arbiter, it would be good if you can compile the
3.7 branch and use it since it has an important fix
(<a href="http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12479/" target="_blank">http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12479/</a>) that will only make it to
glusterfs-3.7.7. That way you'd get this fix and the sharding ones
too right away. <br><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote><div style="font-family:garamond,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt;color:#000000"><div> -Krutika<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010ff;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><br><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br><a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></blockquote><div><br></div></div><br><br><pre>_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></pre></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</span></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Gluster-users mailing list<br>Gluster-users@gluster.org<br>http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</blockquote><div><br></div></div></body></html>