Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "0kib".
Did you mean:
0kb
2018 Mar 20
0
Gluster very poor performance when copying small files (1x (2+1) = 3, SSD)
...-randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=32 --size=256MB --readwrite=randwrite
test: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-3.1
Starting 1 process
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [w(1)][100.0%][r=0KiB/s,w=17.3MiB/s][r=0,w=4422 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=42701: Tue Mar 20 15:05:23 2018
write: IOPS=4443, BW=17.4MiB/s (18.2MB/s)(256MiB/14748msec)
bw ( KiB/s): min=16384, max=19184, per=99.92%, avg=17760.45, stdev=602.48, samples=29
iops : min= 4096, max...
2018 Mar 20
2
Gluster very poor performance when copying small files (1x (2+1) = 3, SSD)
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Sam McLeod <mailinglists at smcleod.net>
wrote:
> Hi Raghavendra,
>
>
> On 20 Mar 2018, at 1:55 pm, Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> Aggregating large number of small writes by write-behind into large writes
> has been merged on master:
> https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/364
>
>
2007 Jun 16
1
4 GB USB flash disk with FAT ok, with ext3 corrupted files
I recently bought 2 different USB flash disks. These are some cheap no-name
devices. Their parameters:
bytes C/H/S ID
4194304512 509/255/63 Vendor: Generic Model: USB Flash Drive Rev: 1.00 ANSI SCSI revision: 02
4288676352 1023/132/62 Vendor: USB Model: USB 2.0 Rev: 1.00 ANSI SCSI revision: 02
When I put a FAT32 filesystem on them,