glusterfs is a distributed file system, fair enough, easy to
maintain and very friendly to the user
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.
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
thus I believe for simpler scenarios glusterfs won't do, for
instance one would like to run a live replica of a storage,
a glusterfs two bricks replicated vol VS even only
bidirectional lsyncd
lsyncd wins by miles, even for very deep data trees with
lots of files
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.
thanks
On 02/05/12 13:09, Amar Tumballi wrote:
On 05/02/2012 02:22 PM, lejeczek wrote:
thanks for posting
I'd be curious to see what kind of disproportion you get
between: raw
fs / single brick volume with local fuse mountpoint which
effectively
points back to the same raw fs
from my quick tests I saw massive gap between the two
thanks
Tests are:
Single Disk (direct, no gluster)
Gluster Replicated
Gluster Striped Replicated
Gluster Distributed Replicated
Gluster Stripe
Hi All,
I would like to clarify few things before some one does
performance runs on GlusterFS.
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.
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).
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.
Regards,
Amar
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
