search for: read_ahead_kb

Hi, I'm looking for some recommendations for a "fast" fileserver regarding the hardware you use. We have different fileservers as our requirements changed over time. The "main" problem we are faced with is, that with smb (windows 7 and OS X) clients we never get really close to GBit speed on reads or writes. Using the same servers/storages with ftp, ssh, rsync, nfs we

Hi all after being a silent reader for some time and not very successful in getting good performance out of our test set-up, I'm finally getting to the list with questions. Right now, we are operating a web server serving out 4MB files for a distributed computing project. Data is requested from all over the world at a rate of about 650k to 800k downloads a day. Each data file is usually

...ggressive caching, does this match > the needs of your application? That is, do you have the situation > where the client NFS layer does an aggressive read-ahead that is never > used by the application? That was one of our early theories. On 6, you can adjust this via /sys/class/bdi/X:Y/read_ahead_kb (use stat on the mountpoint to determine X and Y). This file doesn't exist on 5. But we tried increasing and decreasing it from the default (960), and didn't see any changes. > Are C5 and C6 using the same NFS protocol version? How about TCP vs > UDP? If UDP is in play, have a lo...

Hi all, This patchset makes some key modifications to the original ''stable page writes'' patchset. First, it provides users (devices and filesystems) of a backing_dev_info the ability to declare whether or not it is necessary to ensure that page contents cannot change during writeout, whereas the current code assumes that this is true. Second, it relaxes the

We have a "compute cluster" of about 100 machines that do a read-only NFS mount to a big NAS filer (a NetApp FAS6280). The jobs running on these boxes are analysis/simulation jobs that constantly read data off the NAS. We recently upgraded all these machines from CentOS 5.7 to CentOS 6.5. We did a "piecemeal" upgrade, usually upgrading five or so machines at a time, every few

Hello, I try to create some kind of mail backup system. What I need is system that will store mail for the whole domain, and allow me to restore messages from/to specified email at that domain. The scheme is pretty simple: on our main mail server the SMTP server itself has a rule to send a copy of every message to 'backup at backupserver.host', and the backupserver.host domain is

..._requests_entry = { - .attr = {.name = "nr_requests", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR }, + .attr = {.name = "nr_requests", .mode = 0644 }, .show = queue_requests_show, .store = queue_requests_store, }; static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_ra_entry = { - .attr = {.name = "read_ahead_kb", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR }, + .attr = {.name = "read_ahead_kb", .mode = 0644 }, .show = queue_ra_show, .store = queue_ra_store, }; static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_max_sectors_entry = { - .attr = {.name = "max_sectors_kb", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR }, + .att...

..._requests_entry = { - .attr = {.name = "nr_requests", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR }, + .attr = {.name = "nr_requests", .mode = 0644 }, .show = queue_requests_show, .store = queue_requests_store, }; static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_ra_entry = { - .attr = {.name = "read_ahead_kb", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR }, + .attr = {.name = "read_ahead_kb", .mode = 0644 }, .show = queue_ra_show, .store = queue_ra_store, }; static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_max_sectors_entry = { - .attr = {.name = "max_sectors_kb", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR }, + .att...

All, For our project, we bought 8 new Supermicro servers. Each server is a quad-core Intel cpu with 2U chassis supporting 8 x 7200 RPM Sata drives. To start out, we only populated 2 x 2TB enterprise drives in each server and added all 8 peers with their total of 16 drives as bricks to our gluster pool as distributed replicated (2). The replica worked as follows: 1.1 -> 2.1 1.2

This was a request from the systemd guys. They need a quick and easy way to get all devices attached to a Btrfs filesystem in order to check if any of the disks are SSD for...something, I didn''t ask :). I''ve tested this with the btrfs-progs patch that accompanies this patch. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 64