Gluster users - Oct 2015 - Unnecessary healing in 3-node replication setup on reboot

On 17 October 2015 at 02:51, Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com> wrote:
> You may also want to check sharding (currently in beta with 3.7) where
> large files are chunked to smaller fragments. With this scheme,
> self-healing (and rolling checksum computation thereby) happens only on
> those fragments that undergo changes when one of the nodes in a replicated
> set is offline. This has shown nice improvements in gluster's resource
> utilization during self-healing.
>

Does it effect read speed and random i/o? I guess that would depend on the
methodology used to calculate shard location for a given block. Could be
quite interesting on top of zfs, love to test.


-- 
Lindsay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20151017/9564482f/attachment.html>

On Saturday 17 October 2015 04:15 AM, Lindsay Mathieson
wrote:
>
> On 17 October 2015 at 02:51, Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com
> <mailto:vbellur at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     You may also want to check sharding (currently in beta with 3.7)
>     where large files are chunked to smaller fragments. With this
>     scheme, self-healing (and rolling checksum computation thereby)
>     happens only on those fragments that undergo changes when one of the
>     nodes in a replicated set is offline. This has shown nice
>     improvements in gluster's resource utilization during self-healing.
>
>
>
> Does it effect read speed and random i/o? I guess that would depend on
> the methodology used to calculate shard location for a given block.
> Could be quite interesting on top of zfs, love to test.
>
Krutika has been working on several performance improvements for 
sharding and the results have been encouraging for virtual machine 
workloads.

Testing feedback would be very welcome!

Thanks,
Vijay