[Discuss] Gluster startup, small-files performance

[Richard Pieri]

F. O. Ozbek wrote:
> That is the whole point, "doesn't flush its write buffers when
> instructed to do so". You don't need to instruct. The data gets written
> all the time. When we have done the tests, we have done tens of
> thousands of writes (basically checksum'ed test files) and
> read tests succeeded all the time.

But what it seems you haven't done is kill the power while writing to
see how messy the damage is and how difficult the cleanup will be.


> The fact that it doesn't support forcing the buffer to the disk
> is not the problem in this case. Glusterfs will start giving
> you random I/O errors under heavy load. How is that any good?

It's not. It's also not relevant to lack of atomic writes on MooseFS.

Yes, I understand the desire for throughput. I don't like the idea of
sacrificing reliability to get it.


> I don't know what you are referring to in Cambridge but
> we are not Cambridge.

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/29/cambridge-power-outage-thousands-hit-blackout/0r93dJVZglkOagAFw8w9bK/story.html

-- 
Rich P.