search for: 466tb

...showed the size for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No changes were made to this volume after the update. In both cases, examining t...

...for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with > 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the > volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of > ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. > > > > Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each > server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL > 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No > changes were made to this volume after the u...

...ume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with >> 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the >> volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of >> ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. >> >> >> >> Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each >> server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL >> 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No >> changes were mad...

...showed the size for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. > > Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No changes were made to this volume after the update. > > In b...

...showed the size for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No changes were made to this volume after the update. In both cases, examining t...

...showed the size for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No changes were made to this volume after the update. In both cases, examining t...

...showed the size for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No changes were made to this volume after the update. In both cases, examining t...

...for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with > 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the > volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of > ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. > > > > Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each > server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL > 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No > changes were made to this volume after the u...

...showed the size for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No changes were made to this volume after the update. In both cases, examining t...

...for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with > 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the > volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of > ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. > > > > Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each > server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL > 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No > changes were made to this volume after the u...

...for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with > 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the > volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of > ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. > > > > Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each > server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL > 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No > changes were made to this volume after the u...

...for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with > 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the > volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of > ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. > > > > Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each > server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL > 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No > changes were made to this volume after the u...

...showed the size for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No changes were made to this volume after the update. In both cases, examining t...

...for the volume as 233TB. After the update, we added 2 bricks with > 1 on each server, but the output of ?df? still only listed 233TB for the > volume. We added 2 more bricks, again with 1 on each server. The output of > ?df? now shows 350TB, but the aggregate of 8 ? 59TB bricks should be ~466TB. > > > > Configuration 2: A distributed, replicated volume with 9 bricks on each > server for a total of ~350TB of storage. After the server update to RHEL > 6.9 and gluster 3.12.4, the volume now shows as having 50TB with ?df?. No > changes were made to this volume after the u...