search for: erasurecod

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 t...

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?...

...On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Xavi Hernandez <jahernan at redhat.com> wrote: > 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...

...dez <jahernan at redhat.com> wrote: >> 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 2...