Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "160tb".
Did you mean:
160gb
2013 Dec 12
3
Is Gluster the wrong solution for us?
...ewhat limited test environment, GlusterFS seemed to work well. And, our initial introduction of GlusterFS into our production environment went well. We had our initial 2 server (80TB) cluster about 50% full and things seemed to be going well.
Then we added another pair of servers (for a total of 160TB). This went fine until we did the rebalance. We were running 3.3.1. We ran into the handle leak problem (which unfortunately we didn't know about beforehand). We also found that if any of the bricks went offline while the rebalance was going on, then files were lost or they lost their permi...
2008 Nov 25
2
Mac .DS_Stores
Hi all. We have a file server using samba with a lot of Mac clients.
Mac uses files called .DS_Store to store information about the layout
of the files in the directory. We have a hierarchal storage system,
and don't want to back up the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands
of .DS_store files. Currently we have a policy in place that these
files don't get backed up, but they
2013 Feb 27
1
Slow read performance
Help please-
I am running 3.3.1 on Centos using a 10GB network. I get reasonable write speeds, although I think they could be faster. But my read speeds are REALLY slow.
Executive summary:
On gluster client-
Writes average about 700-800MB/s
Reads average about 70-80MB/s
On server-
Writes average about 1-1.5GB/s
Reads average about 2-3GB/s
Any thoughts?
Here are some additional details: