search for: sicluster

Hi, We have recently upgraded our gluster to 3.2.5 and have encountered the following error. Gluster seems somehow confused about one of the files it should be serving up, specifically /projects/philex/PE/2010/Oct18/arch07/BalbacFull_250_200_03Mar_3.png If I go to that directory and simply do an ls *.png I get ls: BalbacFull_250_200_03Mar_3.png: Structure needs cleaning (along with a listing

Hi all! What's the best way to stop the CLIENT process for Gluster? We have dual systems, where the Gluster servers also act as clients, so both, glusterd and glusterfsd are running on the system. Stopping the server app. works via "/etc/init.d/glusterd stop" but the client is stopped how? I need to unmount the filesystem from the server in order to do a fsck on the ext4 volume;

...is (badly) broken there as well, but thats a whole other story. n.b. we are updating them to 3.2.2 tomorrow. -- Joseph Landman, Ph.D Founder and CEO Scalable Informatics, Inc. email: landman at scalableinformatics.com web : http://scalableinformatics.com http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 fax : +1 866 888 3112 cell : +1 734 612 4615

Hello gluster-verse! I'm about to see if GlusterFS can handle a large amount of clients, this was not at all in plans when we initially selected and setup our current configuration. What sort of experience do you (the collective "you" as in y'all) have with a large client to storage brick server ratio? (~1330:1) Where do you see things going awnry? Most of this will be reads

Howdy, are any of the Gluster folks going to SC10 next week? Mike

I have been tweaking and researching for a while now and can't seem to get "good" performance out of Gluster. I'm using Gluster to replace an NFS server (c1.xlarge) that serves files to an array of web servers, all in EC2. In my tests Gluster is significantly slower than NFS on average. I'm using a distributed replicated volume on two (m1.large) bricks: Volume Name: ebs

We're considering implementing gluster for a genomics cluster, and it seems to have some theoretical advantages that so far seem to have been borne out in some limited testing, mod some odd problems with an inability to delete dir trees. I'm about to test with the latest beta that was promised to clear up these bugs, but as I'm doing that, answers to these Qs would be

Our webserver is configured as such: The actual website files, php, html ,css and so on. Or on a dedicated non-glusterfs ext4 partition. However, the website access Videos and especially image files on a gluster mounted directory. The write performance for our backend gluster storage is not that important. Since it only comes into play when someone uploads a video or image. However, the files

OK - finished some tests over tcp and ironed out a lot of problems. rdma is next; should be snap now.... [I must admit that this is my 1st foray into the land of IB, so some of the following may be obvious to a non-naive admin..] except that while I can create and start the volume with rdma as transport: ================================== root at pbs3:~ 622 $ gluster volume info glrdma

Suppose I start building nodes with (say) 24 drives each in them. Would the standard/recommended approach be to make each drive its own filesystem, and export 24 separate bricks, server1:/data1 .. server1:/data24 ? Making a distributed replicated volume between this and another server would then have to list all 48 drives individually. At the other extreme, I could put all 24 drives into some

Hi, I've been migrating data from an old striped 3.0.x gluster install to a 3.3 beta install. I copied all the data to a regular XFS partition (4K blocksize) from the old gluster striped volume and it totaled 9.2TB. With the old setup I used the following option in a "volume stripe" block in the configuration file in a client : volume stripe type cluster/stripe option

GlusterFS newbie (less than a week) here. Running GlusterFS 3.2.6 servers on Dell PE2900 systems with four 3.16 GHz Xeon cores and 16 GB memory under CentOS 5.8. For this test, I have a distributed volume of one brick only, so no replication. I have made performance measurements with both dd and Bonnie++, and they confirm each other; here I report only the dd numbers (using bs=1024k). File

Hi all, I am having problems with painfully slow directory listings on a freshly created replicated volume. The configuration is as follows: 2 nodes with 3 replicated drives each. The total volume capacity is 5.6T. We would like to expand the storage capacity much more, but first we need to figure this problem out. Soon after loading up about 100 MB of small files (about 300kb each), the

I think this discussion probably came up here already but I couldn't find much on the archives. Would you able to comment or correct whatever might look wrong. What options people think is more adequate to use with Gluster in terms of RAID underneath and a good balance between cost, usable space and performance. I have thought about two main options with its Pros and Cons No RAID (individual

Hello everybody. I have a problem setting up gluster failover funcionality. Based on manual i setup ucarp which is working well ( tested with ping/ssh etc ) But when i use virtual address for gluster volume mount and i turn off one of nodes machine/gluster will freeze until node is back online. My virtual ip is 3.200 and machine real ip is 3.233 and 3.5. In gluster log i can see: [2011-06-06

Whamcloud and EMC are jointly investigating how to be able to contribute the Lustre client code into the upstream Linux kernel. As a prerequisite to this, EMC is working to clean up the Lustre client code to better match the kernel coding style, and one of the anticipated major obstacles to upstream kernel submission is the heavy use of code abstraction via libcfs for portability to other

Whamcloud and EMC are jointly investigating how to be able to contribute the Lustre client code into the upstream Linux kernel. As a prerequisite to this, EMC is working to clean up the Lustre client code to better match the kernel coding style, and one of the anticipated major obstacles to upstream kernel submission is the heavy use of code abstraction via libcfs for portability to other