<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="-1"><font face="serif">glusterfs is a distributed file
system, fair enough, easy to maintain and very friendly to the
user<br>
still, comparing it against a raw (local) file system, like I do
via local mount point back ended with a single brick volume
would be a valid route to see what glusterfs does when most of
the variables are out of the equation.<br>
I mean a basic logic one would follow is, unless a volume is a
smartly distributed it would slow down even more (with some
formula) as soon as other media get involved<br>
thus I believe for simpler scenarios glusterfs won't do, for
instance one would like to run a live replica of a storage,<br>
a glusterfs two bricks replicated vol VS even only bidirectional
lsyncd<br>
lsyncd wins by miles, even for very deep data trees with lots of
files<br>
<br>
all may appreciate great bonus of clear and easy maintenance
gluster offers (yet still no AFR-like setups with command utils
possible) which is important for more complex configurations,
for simpler ones this bonus does not outweigh poor performance
gluster suffers from, well, in my opinion.<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></font><br>
On 02/05/12 13:09, Amar Tumballi wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FA12413.2090405@redhat.com" type="cite">On
05/02/2012 02:22 PM, lejeczek wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">thanks for posting
<br>
I'd be curious to see what kind of disproportion you get
between: raw
<br>
fs / single brick volume with local fuse mountpoint which
effectively
<br>
points back to the same raw fs
<br>
from my quick tests I saw massive gap between the two
<br>
thanks
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Tests are:
<br>
Single Disk (direct, no gluster)
<br>
Gluster Replicated
<br>
Gluster Striped Replicated
<br>
Gluster Distributed Replicated
<br>
Gluster Stripe
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi All,
<br>
<br>
I would like to clarify few things before some one does
performance runs on GlusterFS.
<br>
<br>
First of all, GlusterFS is not designed/intended to be used as a
local filesystem, ie, without n/w in picture it should not be used
for any kind of benchmark. Please do let us know the exact use
cases to use GlusterFS without n/w in picture, and we can consider
that in our designs.
<br>
<br>
If you are comparing GlusterFS's performance to your local file
system (like XFS/ext4/btrfs etc), performance numbers would look
bad, for sure (at least for short future).
<br>
<br>
This is the main reason, we recommend understanding the use-case
before deploying GlusterFS. Try to run with similar workload on
the setup to run benchmarks, because the pattern of fops, type of
volume, type of hardware/ type of network, all of these has a
effect on benchmark numbers you would get.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Amar
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>