search for: testnumbers

Hi, I am trying to interpret the coefficients in the model: RateOfMotorPlay ~ TestNumber + Sex + TestNumber * Sex where there are thee different tests and Sex is (obviously) binary. My results are: Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -86.90 -26.28 -7.68 22.52 123.74 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 29.430 6.248

Heya fellas. I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster 3.10.7. We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% of all operations are of the write variet...

...2. What client you are using to run this? Thanks, Nithya On 12 March 2018 at 18:16, Andreas Ericsson <andreas.ericsson at findity.com> wrote: > Heya fellas. > > I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even > halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster > 3.10.7. > > We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout > directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of > the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% > of all opera...

..., 2018 1:47 PM > *To:* Gluster-users at gluster.org > *Subject:* [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario > > > > Heya fellas. > > > > I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even > halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster > 3.10.7. > > > > We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout > directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of > the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% > of...

...org] On Behalf Of Andreas Ericsson Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:47 PM To: Gluster-users at gluster.org Subject: [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario Heya fellas. I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster 3.10.7. We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% of all operations are of the write variet...

...at gluster.org >> *Subject:* [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario >> >> >> >> Heya fellas. >> >> >> >> I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even >> halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster >> 3.10.7. >> >> >> >> We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout >> directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of >> the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably...

...nday, March 12, 2018 1:47 PM To: Gluster-users at gluster.org<mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org> Subject: [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario Heya fellas. I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster 3.10.7. We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% of all operations are of the write variet...

..., 2018 1:47 PM > *To:* Gluster-users at gluster.org > *Subject:* [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario > > > > Heya fellas. > > > > I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even > halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster > 3.10.7. > > > > We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout > directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of > the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% > of...

...nday, March 12, 2018 1:47 PM To: Gluster-users at gluster.org<mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org> Subject: [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario Heya fellas. I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster 3.10.7. We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% of all operations are of the write variet...

..., 2018 1:47 PM > *To:* Gluster-users at gluster.org > *Subject:* [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario > > > > Heya fellas. > > > > I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even > halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster > 3.10.7. > > > > We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout > directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of > the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% > of...

..., 2018 1:47 PM > *To:* Gluster-users at gluster.org > *Subject:* [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario > > > > Heya fellas. > > > > I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even > halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster > 3.10.7. > > > > We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout > directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of > the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99% > of...