Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:55:28 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Thomas Steen Rasmussen <thomas@gibfest.dk> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAST initial sync speed Message-ID: <20100810075528.GA1754@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <4C5ECA78.6010803@gibfest.dk> References: <4C57E20E.2030908@gibfest.dk> <20100806135001.GF1710@garage.freebsd.pl> <4C5ECA78.6010803@gibfest.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] 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? -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkxhBfAACgkQForvXbEpPzRbyACglMxEZZ7Ursm7C5pOfBOgGIFi yXEAn3DRUPwKiaoh4glXai0uYRd0M1Rd =GuRp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100810075528.GA1754>