[Please, CC replies to me directly as I am not subscribed to the list. Thank you.]
Joe Landman wrote: > > As mentioned above, four test-files were used for the benchmark: > > 1. Small static file - 429 bytes > 2. Larger static file - 93347 bytes > 3. Small PHP file (a single php call in it -- to phpinfo() function). > Although the file is small, its output was over 64Kb. > 4. Large PHP file (apc.php). Although the file is larger, its output > was only about 12Kb. > > One of the questions I routinely ask our customers is what their > definitions of "small" and "large" are, as their definitions might not > match what I use for these terms. This is directly relevant in your > case. What you call "larger" is considered small for GlusterFS. You > want MB sized IOs to amortize the cost of the fuse system calls. But these files are representative of what our web-servers will be serving -- primarily. Though there may be an occasional video, mostly it is static HTML and "web-size" images, plus PHP-scripts... Are you saying, GlusterFS is not really for us? We expected to pay /some/ performance penalty for the features, but the actual numbers are causing a sticker-shock... (Writing to GlusterFS is even more horrid -- extracting thunderbird-24.0.tar.bz2, for example, on a GlusterFS share takes almost 30 minutes, instead of seconds on local FS, but we have very few writes, and so were willing to ignore that.) > Did you look at the CSW number? Is it also high? Around 8K per second, if I'm reading the output of vmstat correctly. -mi
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel