for that workload (using that particular test with the dsync) then that is what I saw on mounted gluster given the 7200 drives and simple 1G network. Next week I'll make a point of running your test with bonded ethernet to see if that improves things. Note: our testing uses the following: for size in `echo 50M 10M 1M` do echo 'starting' pwd echo "$size" dd if=/dev/zero of=./junk bs=$size count=100 oflag=direct; rm ./junk done so we are doing multiple copies of much smaller files. and this is what I see on that kit SIZE = 50M 1.01 0.84 0.77 2/388 28977 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB, 4.9 GiB) copied, 70.262 s, 74.6 MB/s SIZE = 10M 3.88 1.79 1.11 2/400 29336 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 15.8082 s, 66.3 MB/s SIZE = 1M 3.93 1.95 1.18 1/394 29616 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 104857600 bytes (105 MB, 100 MiB) copied, 1.67975 s, 62.4 MB/s with teamd (bonding) I would expect an approx 40-50% speed increase (which is why I didn't catch my error earlier as I am used to seeing values in the 80s) On 11/26/2020 11:11 PM, Harry O wrote:
So my gluster performance results is expected? _______________________________________________ Users mailing list -- users@ovirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@ovirt.org Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/users@ovirt.org/message/RCQ5LA77ZFQF5V...