You say that accessing Gluster via NFS is actually faster than native (fuse)
client?
Still I would like to know why we can’t use kernel NFS server on the data
bricks. I understand we can’t use it on MDS as it can’t support pNFS.
Ondrej
From: gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org
...@esat.kuleuven.be]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 7:38 PM
To: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valou...@s3group.com>
Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster for home directories?
Hi,
On 2018-03-07 16:35, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
> Why do you need to replace your existing solution?
Hi,
Gluster will never perform well for small files.
I believe there is nothing you can do with this.
Ondrej
From: gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org
[mailto:gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Ericsson
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:47 PM
To: Gluster-users@gluster.org
++
end
rm -rf test.$HOSTNAME.*
Takes 9 seconds to execute on the NFS share, but 90 seconds on GlusterFS – i.e.
10 times slower.
Ondrej
From: Pranith Kumar Karampuri [mailto:pkara...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:28 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valou...@s3group.com>
Cc: Andr
Sorry - no time to play with that. But it’s simple to reproduce, just set up
your of async nfs server, take my script and you will see on your own.
Ondrej
From: Pranith Kumar Karampuri [mailto:pkara...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:41 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.va
performance
Ondrej
From: Pranith Kumar Karampuri [mailto:pkara...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:10 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valou...@s3group.com>
Cc: Andreas Ericsson <andreas.erics...@findity.com>; Gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Expected performa
Use DRBD then, that will give you required redundancy.
From: Andreas Ericsson [mailto:andreas.erics...@findity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:32 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valou...@s3group.com>
Cc: Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkara...@redhat.com>; Gluster-users@gluster.org
.
From: Andreas Ericsson [mailto:andreas.erics...@findity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:43 AM
To: Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkara...@redhat.com>
Cc: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valou...@s3group.com>; Gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Expected performance for W
Hi list,
I am wondering why do we need Ganesha user-land NFS server in order to get pNFS
working?
I understand Ganesha is necessary on the MDS, but standard kernel based NFS
server should be sufficient on DS bricks (which should bring us additional
performance), right?
Could someone clarify?
Hi,
Why do you need to replace your existing solution?
If you don't need to scale out due to the capacity reasons, the async NFS
server will always outperform GlusterFS
Ondrej
-
The information contained in this e-mail and in any attachments is confidential
and is designated solely for the
Hi,
As I posted in my previous emails - glusterfs can never match NFS (especially
async one) performance of small files/latency. That's given by the design.
Nothing you can do about it.
Ondrej
-Original Message-
From: gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org
11 matches
Mail list logo
