From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 10 22:14:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73D51065690; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:14:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from thomas@gibfest.dk) Received: from mail.tyknet.dk (mail.tyknet.dk [213.150.42.155]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2D08FC2E; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:14:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.32.67.58] (fw.int.webpartner.dk [213.150.34.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.tyknet.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60F3A638DFC; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:14:38 +0200 (CEST) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v1.1.2 mail.tyknet.dk 60F3A638DFC DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=gibfest.dk; s=default; t=1281478478; bh=KCauY8mK0nMzJD7c0NAXP1v/F/gVe6FF4WihnfJfW3A=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=w9iJUcMOKHGcQ3afjGR23vAle2yOXcxyOCpwDUCuE6J6ljEfOKv4jKNoDZIniS7pJ VXPtA28+hxsN7LaW/WY3IHt4GWpeEoXaj795Q19q6WYsnAWuSnTLt4MqZ8lXuowUlP 5Oa3YXVKkR+OBaHwTIHuddga2c6BLTSjWnxDQFOI= Message-ID: <4C61CF4D.4060009@gibfest.dk> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:14:37 +0200 From: Thomas Steen Rasmussen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek References: <4C57E20E.2030908@gibfest.dk> <20100806135001.GF1710@garage.freebsd.pl> <4C5ECA78.6010803@gibfest.dk> <20100810075528.GA1754@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <20100810075528.GA1754@garage.freebsd.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAST initial sync speed X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:14:39 -0000 On 10-08-2010 09:55, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 05:17:12PM +0200, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: > >> On 06-08-2010 15:50, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >> >>> Correct, but synchronizartion should take much, much less time. >>> Is dirty count actually decreasing? >>> >>> >>> >> Hello, >> >> Yes it was decreasing steadily but very slowly. It finished between >> thursday >> evening and friday morning, and the dirty count is now 0. All in all it >> took over >> 72 hours. It was transferring around 20mbits while doing this. However, >> if I >> copied a large file to the primary HAST node, it would use up a lot more >> bandwidth. It is like HAST was synchronizing the "empty space" with lower >> priority or something. Does that make any sense ? The servers are not in >> production so I can perform any testing needed. Thank you for your reply. >> > It does make sense, but HAST is not doing this:) Could you start with > veryfing if synchronization is so slow also when you have only one > resource configured? > > Hello, I can now confirm that synchronization is also slow with only one HAST resource. It is currently running with 2.5 megabits per second... around 300kilobytes per sec is written to the disk according to gstat. An iperf test shows a network potential of about a gigabit (wire speed). Thomas Steen Rasmussen