search for: bricksizes

Hi, We ran a test on GlusterFS 3.12.1 with erasurecoded volumes 8+2 with 10 bricks (default config,tested with 100gb, 200gb, 400gb bricksizes,10gbit nics) 1. Tests show that healing takes about double the time on healing 200gb vs 100, and abit under the double on 400gb vs 200gb bricksizes. Is this expected behaviour? In light of this would make 6,4 tb bricksizes use ~ 377 hours to heal. 100gb brick heal: 18 hours (8+2) 200gb brick heal...

Hi Rolf, answers follow inline... On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Rolf Larsen <rolf at jotta.no> wrote: > Hi, > > We ran a test on GlusterFS 3.12.1 with erasurecoded volumes 8+2 with 10 > bricks (default config,tested with 100gb, 200gb, 400gb bricksizes,10gbit > nics) > > 1. > Tests show that healing takes about double the time on healing 200gb vs > 100, and abit under the double on 400gb vs 200gb bricksizes. Is this > expected behaviour? In light of this would make 6,4 tb bricksizes use ~ 377 > hours to heal. > > 100gb...

...f, > > answers follow inline... > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Rolf Larsen <rolf at jotta.no> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> We ran a test on GlusterFS 3.12.1 with erasurecoded volumes 8+2 with 10 >> bricks (default config,tested with 100gb, 200gb, 400gb bricksizes,10gbit >> nics) >> >> 1. >> Tests show that healing takes about double the time on healing 200gb vs >> 100, and abit under the double on 400gb vs 200gb bricksizes. Is this >> expected behaviour? In light of this would make 6,4 tb bricksizes use ~ 377 >> hou...

..... >> >>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Rolf Larsen <rolf at jotta.no> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> We ran a test on GlusterFS 3.12.1 with erasurecoded volumes 8+2 with 10 >>> bricks (default config,tested with 100gb, 200gb, 400gb bricksizes,10gbit >>> nics) >>> >>> 1. >>> Tests show that healing takes about double the time on healing 200gb vs >>> 100, and abit under the double on 400gb vs 200gb bricksizes. Is this >>> expected behaviour? In light of this would make 6,4 tb bricksiz...