| Summary: | write-behind does not set a default cache size | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Community] GlusterFS | Reporter: | Vikas Gorur <vikas> | ||||
| Component: | write-behind | Assignee: | Raghavendra G <raghavendra> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||
| Version: | mainline | CC: | anush, avati, gluster-bugs | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |||||
| Regression: | RTNR | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Vikas Gorur
2009-06-25 09:44:37 UTC
> The default cache-size in write-behind is 0, which makes it useless. The default should be set to a sensible value. 1MB might be a good value.
Is the above line a conclusion made from experimental observation, or just an opinion? The behavior of write-behind with 0 cache-size is to "write behind" one request at a time, and keep the following request blocked (not unwound) till the first request reply (nevertheless instantly stack wind the second request towards the server as soon as it arrives) -- not really useless.
Both patches 653 and 655 seem to be separately submitted towards this same bug. Is there a more convincing reason for these patches?
Avati
(In reply to comment #1) > > The default cache-size in write-behind is 0, which makes it useless. The default should be set to a sensible value. 1MB might be a good value. > > Is the above line a conclusion made from experimental observation, or just an > opinion? The behavior of write-behind with 0 cache-size is to "write behind" > one request at a time, and keep the following request blocked (not unwound) > till the first request reply (nevertheless instantly stack wind the second > request towards the server as soon as it arrives) -- not really useless. Not an experimental observation, just an opinion. > Both patches 653 and 655 seem to be separately submitted towards this same bug. > Is there a more convincing reason for these patches? I've marked my patch as Superseded. Please apply Raghu's patch. Created attachment 34 [details]
This is another attempt
As the graph above clearly shows, it is better to set the default cache size to a higher value. fix committed in bde0032cfbe51383c697247831e26394ca6cd913. |