Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:14:37 +0200 From: Thomas Steen Rasmussen <thomas@gibfest.dk> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAST initial sync speed Message-ID: <4C61CF4D.4060009@gibfest.dk> In-Reply-To: <20100810075528.GA1754@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <4C57E20E.2030908@gibfest.dk> <20100806135001.GF1710@garage.freebsd.pl> <4C5ECA78.6010803@gibfest.dk> <20100810075528.GA1754@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C61CF4D.4060009>