Menu
▾
▴
moosefs-users
|
From: Heiko S. <sch...@iu...> - 2011-02-26 13:27:52
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:21:33 +0100 "Michal Borychowski" <mic...@ge...> wrote: > Hi! > > If you set goal=1, all chunks belonging to the same file will go to the same > chunk server. Supposed to, but it does not work this way. In our test setup (one master, one client, two chunkservers) the chunks are beeing spread across the two chunkservers, even with "goal=1". df on on the chunksrevr clearly shows that the files are spread evenly across them. mfsfileinfo shows that the chunks are placed alternatingly on the chunk servers. Incrementing "goal" only increases the number of copies. Screenshots can be supplied on tuesday since our server room is under reconstruction over the weekend. Heiko |
|
From: Michal B. <mic...@ge...> - 2011-03-02 10:40:57
|
Hi Heiko! We undestand your point and can see that using RAID6 + goal=1 is a little bit more economical than RAW HDD + goal=2 but this is not a huge difference as you still need some disks for the RAID6. The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use any RAIDs and using at least goal=2. Module responsible for rebalancing chunks operates on chunks (independently of the files). Each chunk is treated individually while making different operations. So the requested change is not just a matter of providing a simple patch, it would be a change in the "philosophy" of the system and unfortunately won't be possible. Kind regards Michal -----Original Message----- From: Heiko Schröter [mailto:sch...@iu...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:13 PM To: mic...@ge... Subject: Chunks Hi Michael, sorry for seeing your post to the list too late before posting my screenshots. I can see your point, but to us it would be very important to have a "chunkabilty" or striping in other fs of one. The reason: We recieve a lot of large satellite data files per day. (400MB to 2GB per file). The storage space is limited (because of the governmental funding), so we need to keep risks to a certain minimum with the ressources given. We are running Hardware raid6 on our chunkservers. So there is some safety margin here. But we need to make sure that in case of a total breakdown of a chunkserver only some files are lost to 100%, and not all files beeing damaged to a certain extend and therefore irrecoverable. So if i could be of any help testing a patch i would very much appreciate it. Thanks for your time looking into this. Regards Heiko Hi Heiko! You are definitely right! I made a mistake writing all chunks of the file with goal=1 would reside just on one chunkserver. Each chunk of the file would go (more or less by random) to different chunkservers. On the other hand we again focus on the point that using goal=1 is almost useless. Unless these are some temporary, unimportant files. The expectation of distributed file system is to keep at least two copies of the file :) Thank you for being conscious :) |
|
From: Steve <st...@bo...> - 2011-03-02 17:30:53
|
What is the feature in moosefs that makes you choose it over say ext4 ? I'm not understanding this yet! -------Original Message------- From: Michal Borychowski Date: 02/03/2011 16:08:20 To: 'Heiko Schröter' Cc: 'moosefs-users' Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks Hi Heiko! We undestand your point and can see that using RAID6 + goal=1 is a little bit more economical than RAW HDD + goal=2 but this is not a huge difference as you still need some disks for the RAID6. The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use any RAIDs and using at least goal=2. Module responsible for rebalancing chunks operates on chunks (independently of the files). Each chunk is treated individually while making different operations. So the requested change is not just a matter of providing a simple patch, it would be a change in the "philosophy" of the system and unfortunately won't be possible. Kind regards Michal -----Original Message----- From: Heiko Schröter [mailto:sch...@iu...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:13 PM To: mic...@ge... Subject: Chunks Hi Michael, sorry for seeing your post to the list too late before posting my screenshots. I can see your point, but to us it would be very important to have a "chunkabilty" or striping in other fs of one. The reason: We receive a lot of large satellite data files per day. (400MB to 2GB per file). The storage space is limited (because of the governmental funding), so we need to keep risks to a certain minimum with the ressources given. We are running Hardware raid6 on our chunkservers. So there is some safety margin here. But we need to make sure that in case of a total breakdown of a chunkserver only some files are lost to 100%, and not all files beeing damaged to a certain extend and therefore irrecoverable. So if I could be of any help testing a patch I would very much appreciate it. Thanks for your time looking into this. Regards Heiko Hi Heiko! You are definitely right! I made a mistake writing all chunks of the file with goal=1 would reside just on one chunkserver. Each chunk of the file would go (more or less by random) to different chunkservers. On the other hand we again focus on the point that using goal=1 is almost useless. Unless these are some temporary, unimportant files. The expectation of distributed file system is to keep at least two copies of the file :) Thank you for being conscious :) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev _______________________________________________ moosefs-users mailing list moo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users |
|
From: Thomas S H. <tha...@gm...> - 2011-03-02 20:51:36
|
Over ext4? moosefs is a different storage layer than ext4, do you mean xfs over ext4? ext3 over ext4? On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Steve <st...@bo...> wrote: > > What is the feature in moosefs that makes you choose it over say ext4 ? > > > > I'm not understanding this yet! > > > > -------Original Message------- > > > > From: Michal Borychowski > > Date: 02/03/2011 16:08:20 > > To: 'Heiko Schröter' > > Cc: 'moosefs-users' > > Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks > > > > Hi Heiko! > > > > We undestand your point and can see that using RAID6 + goal=1 is a little > > bit more economical than RAW HDD + goal=2 but this is not a huge difference > > as you still need some disks for the RAID6. > > > > The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And > > solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use any > > RAIDs and using at least goal=2. > > > > Module responsible for rebalancing chunks operates on chunks (independently > > of the files). Each chunk is treated individually while making different > > operations. So the requested change is not just a matter of providing a > > simple patch, it would be a change in the "philosophy" of the system and > > unfortunately won't be possible. > > > > > > Kind regards > > Michal > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Heiko Schröter [mailto:sch...@iu...] > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:13 PM > > To: mic...@ge... > > Subject: Chunks > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > sorry for seeing your post to the list too late before posting my > > screenshots. > > I can see your point, but to us it would be very important to have a > > "chunkabilty" or striping in other fs of one. > > > > The reason: > > > > We receive a lot of large satellite data files per day. (400MB to 2GB per > > file). > > The storage space is limited (because of the governmental funding), so we > > need to keep risks to a certain minimum with the ressources given. > > > > We are running Hardware raid6 on our chunkservers. So there is some safety > > margin here. > > > > But we need to make sure that in case of a total breakdown of a chunkserver > > only some files are lost to 100%, and not all files beeing damaged to a > > certain extend and therefore irrecoverable. > > > > So if I could be of any help testing a patch I would very much appreciate > > it. > > > > Thanks for your time looking into this. > > > > Regards > > Heiko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Heiko! > > > > You are definitely right! I made a mistake writing all chunks of the file > > with goal=1 would reside just on one chunkserver. Each chunk of the file > > would go (more or less by random) to different chunkservers. > > > > On the other hand we again focus on the point that using goal=1 is almost > > useless. Unless these are some temporary, unimportant files. The > expectation > > > of distributed file system is to keep at least two copies of the file :) > > > > Thank you for being conscious :) > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in > > Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT > data > > generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, > virtual > > or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business > > insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev > > _______________________________________________ > > moosefs-users mailing list > > moo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in > Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT > data > generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, > virtual > or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business > insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > moosefs-users mailing list > moo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users > |
|
From: Michal B. <mic...@ge...> - 2011-03-03 09:05:46
|
Hi! Do you mean why we chose ext3 for the chunkservers? When we started building our infrastructure ext4 was even not available then. Regards Michal -----Original Message----- From: Steve [mailto:st...@bo...] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 6:31 PM To: Heiko Schröter Cc: moo...@li... Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks What is the feature in moosefs that makes you choose it over say ext4 ? I'm not understanding this yet! -------Original Message------- From: Michal Borychowski Date: 02/03/2011 16:08:20 To: 'Heiko Schröter' Cc: 'moosefs-users' Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks Hi Heiko! We undestand your point and can see that using RAID6 + goal=1 is a little bit more economical than RAW HDD + goal=2 but this is not a huge difference as you still need some disks for the RAID6. The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use any RAIDs and using at least goal=2. Module responsible for rebalancing chunks operates on chunks (independently of the files). Each chunk is treated individually while making different operations. So the requested change is not just a matter of providing a simple patch, it would be a change in the "philosophy" of the system and unfortunately won't be possible. Kind regards Michal -----Original Message----- From: Heiko Schröter [mailto:sch...@iu...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:13 PM To: mic...@ge... Subject: Chunks Hi Michael, sorry for seeing your post to the list too late before posting my screenshots. I can see your point, but to us it would be very important to have a "chunkabilty" or striping in other fs of one. The reason: We receive a lot of large satellite data files per day. (400MB to 2GB per file). The storage space is limited (because of the governmental funding), so we need to keep risks to a certain minimum with the ressources given. We are running Hardware raid6 on our chunkservers. So there is some safety margin here. But we need to make sure that in case of a total breakdown of a chunkserver only some files are lost to 100%, and not all files beeing damaged to a certain extend and therefore irrecoverable. So if I could be of any help testing a patch I would very much appreciate it. Thanks for your time looking into this. Regards Heiko Hi Heiko! You are definitely right! I made a mistake writing all chunks of the file with goal=1 would reside just on one chunkserver. Each chunk of the file would go (more or less by random) to different chunkservers. On the other hand we again focus on the point that using goal=1 is almost useless. Unless these are some temporary, unimportant files. The expectation of distributed file system is to keep at least two copies of the file :) Thank you for being conscious :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev _______________________________________________ moosefs-users mailing list moo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev _______________________________________________ moosefs-users mailing list moo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users |
|
From: randall <ra...@so...> - 2011-03-03 10:13:30
|
On 03/02/2011 11:40 AM, Michal Borychowski wrote: > The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And > solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use any > RAIDs and using at least goal=2. > Wondering about this. when no raid and goal=2, this would mean when using multiple disks per server that each disk would be a seperate chunk location. Can see the use of this when you use 1 single server as each copy would reside on 2 seperate disks so you are somewhat protected against disk failure. but when you have 2 servers with each 12 disks (24 chunk locations), does each chunk reside on 2 seperate servers giving protection against server failure? did read somewhere there is work done on "location awareness" spreading each chunks over racks Randall |
|
From: Ricardo J. B. <ric...@da...> - 2011-03-03 22:04:21
|
El Jue 03 Marzo 2011, randall escribió: > On 03/02/2011 11:40 AM, Michal Borychowski wrote: > > The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And > > solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use > > any RAIDs and using at least goal=2. > > Wondering about this. > > when no raid and goal=2, this would mean when using multiple disks per > server that each disk would be a seperate chunk location. > > Can see the use of this when you use 1 single server as each copy would > reside on 2 seperate disks so you are somewhat protected against disk > failure. I don't think so, goal=2 means one chunk in each chunkserver. If you have only one chunckserver your files would be undergoal, though I'm not sure if one chunkserver alone is treated diferently. > but when you have 2 servers with each 12 disks (24 chunk locations), > does each chunk reside on 2 seperate servers giving protection against > server failure? Exactly. You can see where each chunk is located with mfsfileinfo /path/to/file. Regards, -- Ricardo J. Barberis Senior SysAdmin / ITI Dattatec.com :: Soluciones de Web Hosting Tu Hosting hecho Simple! |
|
From: Ricardo J. B. <ric...@da...> - 2011-03-03 22:06:17
|
El Jue 03 Marzo 2011, Steve escribió: > In your first scenario why wouldn't you just mirror the drives ? With only one chunkserver? Yes. > -------Original Message------- > > From: randall > Date: 03/03/2011 10:14:00 > To: moo...@li... > Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks > > On 03/02/2011 11:40 AM, Michal Borychowski wrote: > > The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And > > solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use > > any RAIDs and using at least goal=2. > > Wondering about this. > > when no raid and goal=2, this would mean when using multiple disks per > server that each disk would be a seperate chunk location. > > Can see the use of this when you use 1 single server as each copy would > reside on 2 seperate disks so you are somewhat protected against disk > failure. > > but when you have 2 servers with each 12 disks (24 chunk locations), > does each chunk reside on 2 seperate servers giving protection against > server failure? > > did read somewhere there is work done on "location awareness" spreading > each chunks over racks > > Randall -- Ricardo J. Barberis Senior SysAdmin / ITI Dattatec.com :: Soluciones de Web Hosting Tu Hosting hecho Simple! |
|
From: randall <ra...@so...> - 2011-03-08 06:46:11
|
On 03/03/2011 11:06 PM, Ricardo J. Barberis wrote: > El Jue 03 Marzo 2011, Steve escribió: >> In your first scenario why wouldn't you just mirror the drives ? > > With only one chunkserver? Yes. thanks, understand that if you have a single server setup just normail Raid (10) would be the better approach in this case. but i need some intermediate solution, working on a cash/space/equipment strapped hobby project where we start out with 1 server and we are bound to to end up with more chunk servers eventually. it is not ideal but having goal=2 using a single server (temporarily) saves the hassle of rebuilding the architecture of the setup in a later stage and is at least better than goal=1 anyway, in case someone might be interested, it is doable using virtualisation (linux VServer) using 2 chunk servers as a virtual machine with its own IP and mounting half the amount of disks in each. Again, this does not save you from machine failure and is not the best/most efficient mirroring solution in itself but it does save you somewhat from single disk failure. > >> -------Original Message------- >> >> From: randall >> Date: 03/03/2011 10:14:00 >> To: moo...@li... >> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks >> >> On 03/02/2011 11:40 AM, Michal Borychowski wrote: >>> The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And >>> solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use >>> any RAIDs and using at least goal=2. >> >> Wondering about this. >> >> when no raid and goal=2, this would mean when using multiple disks per >> server that each disk would be a seperate chunk location. >> >> Can see the use of this when you use 1 single server as each copy would >> reside on 2 seperate disks so you are somewhat protected against disk >> failure. >> >> but when you have 2 servers with each 12 disks (24 chunk locations), >> does each chunk reside on 2 seperate servers giving protection against >> server failure? >> >> did read somewhere there is work done on "location awareness" spreading >> each chunks over racks >> >> Randall > |
|
From: Steve <st...@bo...> - 2011-03-08 09:09:52
|
Hi, Can you not pop down to your local recycle center ? For most applications almost any hardware would do for dedicated chunk servers unless your doing some other computations in them. Disk drives are now relatively cheap and even if the box doesn't support sata a simple sata card can be obtained for peanuts. Steve -------Original Message------- From: Randall Date: 03/08/11 06:46:46 To: moo...@li... Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks On 03/03/2011 11:06 PM, Ricardo J. Barberis wrote: > El Jue 03 Marzo 2011, Steve escribió: >> In your first scenario why wouldn't you just mirror the drives ? > > With only one chunkserver? Yes. thanks, understand that if you have a single server setup just normail Raid (10) would be the better approach in this case. but I need some intermediate solution, working on a cash/space/equipment strapped hobby project where we start out with 1 server and we are bound to to end up with more chunk servers eventually. it is not ideal but having goal=2 using a single server (temporarily) saves the hassle of rebuilding the architecture of the setup in a later stage and is at least better than goal=1 anyway, in case someone might be interested, it is doable using virtualisation (linux VServer) using 2 chunk servers as a virtual machine with its own IP and mounting half the amount of disks in each. Again, this does not save you from machine failure and is not the best/most efficient mirroring solution in itself but it does save you somewhat from single disk failure. > >> -------Original Message------- >> >> From: Randall >> Date: 03/03/2011 10:14:00 >> To: moo...@li... >> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks >> >> On 03/02/2011 11:40 AM, Michal Borychowski wrote: >>> The main purpose of MooseFS system is security not the space savings. And >>> solution with RAID6 is not that secure. We generally advise not to use >>> any RAIDs and using at least goal=2. >> >> Wondering about this. >> >> when no raid and goal=2, this would mean when using multiple disks per >> server that each disk would be a separate chunk location. >> >> Can see the use of this when you use 1 single server as each copy would >> reside on 2 seperate disks so you are somewhat protected against disk >> failure. >> >> but when you have 2 servers with each 12 disks (24 chunk locations), >> does each chunk reside on 2 separate servers giving protection against >> server failure? >> >> did read somewhere there is work done on "location awareness" spreading >> each chunks over racks >> >> Randall > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d _______________________________________________ moosefs-users mailing list moo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users |
|
From: Michal B. <mic...@ge...> - 2011-02-28 12:36:30
|
Hi Heiko! You are definitely right! I made a mistake writing all chunks of the file with goal=1 would reside just on one chunkserver. Each chunk of the file would go (more or less by random) to different chunkservers. On the other hand we again focus on the point that using goal=1 is almost useless. Unless these are some temporary, unimportant files. The expectation of distributed file system is to keep at least two copies of the file :) Thank you for being conscious :) Kind regards Michał Borychowski MooseFS Support Manager _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Gemius S.A. ul. Wołoska 7, 02-672 Warszawa Budynek MARS, klatka D Tel.: +4822 874-41-00 Fax : +4822 874-41-01 From: Heiko Schröter [mailto:sch...@iu...] Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 2:28 PM To: mic...@ge... Cc: moo...@li... Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] Chunks On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:21:33 +0100 "Michal Borychowski" < <mailto:mic...@ge...> mic...@ge...> wrote: > Hi! > > If you set goal=1, all chunks belonging to the same file will go to the same > chunk server. Supposed to, but it does not work this way. In our test setup (one master, one client, two chunkservers) the chunks are beeing spread across the two chunkservers, even with "goal=1". df on on the chunksrevr clearly shows that the files are spread evenly across them. mfsfileinfo shows that the chunks are placed alternatingly on the chunk servers. Incrementing "goal" only increases the number of copies. Screenshots can be supplied on tuesday since our server room is under reconstruction over the weekend. Heiko |
|
From: Heiko S. <sch...@iu...> - 2011-02-28 14:58:46
|
Am Samstag 26 Februar 2011, um 14:27:34 schrieb Heiko Schröter:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:21:33 +0100
> "Michal Borychowski" <mic...@ge...> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > If you set goal=1, all chunks belonging to the same file will go to the same
> > chunk server.
> Supposed to, but it does not work this way.
>
> In our test setup (one master, one client, two chunkservers) the chunks are beeing spread across the two chunkservers, even with "goal=1".
> df on on the chunksrevr clearly shows that the files are spread evenly across them.
>
> mfsfileinfo shows that the chunks are placed alternatingly on the chunk servers.
> Incrementing "goal" only increases the number of copies.
>
> Screenshots can be supplied on tuesday since our server room is under reconstruction over the weekend.
>
> Heiko
>
Ok here we go:
Installed OS,mfs on all systems:
2.6.36-gentoo-r5 x86_64
mfs-1.6.20
fuse-2.8.5
chunkserv1: 192.168.16.54
chunkserv2: 192.168.16.147
df on Chunkservers before cp:
chunkserv1 ~ # df -h /mnt/mfschunks*
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdb 5.5T 97M 5.5T 1% /mnt/mfschunks1
/dev/sdc 5.5T 33M 5.5T 1% /mnt/mfschunks2
chunkserv2 ~ # df -h /mnt/mfschunks*
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdb 2.8T 33M 2.8T 1% /mnt/mfschunks1
/dev/sdc 2.8T 33M 2.8T 1% /mnt/mfschunks2
/dev/sdd 2.8T 33M 2.8T 1% /mnt/mfschunks3
client ~ # mkdir /mnt/mfs/folder1
client ~ # mfssetgoal -r 1 /mnt/mfs/folder1/
/mnt/mfs/folder1/:
inodes with goal changed: 0
inodes with goal not changed: 1
inodes with permission denied: 0
client ~ # dd if=/dev/urandom of=/tmp/ttt.dat bs=100M count=5
5+0 records in
5+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 83.5789 s, 6.3 MB/s
client ~ # cp /tmp/ttt.dat /mnt/mfs/folder1/ttt.dat
client ~ # mfsfileinfo /mnt/mfs/folder1/ttt.dat
/mnt/mfs/folder1/ttt.dat:
chunk 0: 0000000000000AC3_00000001 / (id:2755 ver:1)
copy 1: 192.168.16.54:9422
chunk 1: 0000000000000AC4_00000001 / (id:2756 ver:1)
copy 1: 192.168.16.147:9422
chunk 2: 0000000000000AC5_00000001 / (id:2757 ver:1)
copy 1: 192.168.16.54:9422
chunk 3: 0000000000000AC6_00000001 / (id:2758 ver:1)
copy 1: 192.168.16.147:9422
chunk 4: 0000000000000AC7_00000001 / (id:2759 ver:1)
copy 1: 192.168.16.147:9422
chunk 5: 0000000000000AC8_00000001 / (id:2760 ver:1)
copy 1: 192.168.16.54:9422
chunk 6: 0000000000000AC9_00000001 / (id:2761 ver:1)
copy 1: 192.168.16.147:9422
chunk 7: 0000000000000ACA_00000001 / (id:2762 ver:1)
copy 1: 192.168.16.54:9422
client ~ # mfsgetgoal /mnt/mfs/folder1/ttt.dat
/mnt/mfs/folder1/ttt.dat: 1
client ~ # mfsgetgoal /mnt/mfs/folder1
/mnt/mfs/folder1: 1
df on Chunkservers after cp:
chunkserv1 ~ # df -h /mnt/mfschunks*
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdb 5.5T 225M 5.5T 1% /mnt/mfschunks1
/dev/sdc 5.5T 161M 5.5T 1% /mnt/mfschunks2
chunkserv2 ~ # df -h /mnt/mfschunks*
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdb 2.8T 149M 2.8T 1% /mnt/mfschunks1
/dev/sdc 2.8T 97M 2.8T 1% /mnt/mfschunks2
/dev/sdd 2.8T 97M 2.8T 1% /mnt/mfschunks3
Regards
Heiko
|
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X