Re: [Gluster-users] Comparison with other SDS
2016-11-14 12:51 GMT+01:00 Lindsay Mathieson : > Of course if you're running a replica volume, non-dispersed you should > only need to do lookups locally. It would be interesting to know if thats a > optimization gluster does. I have a replica 2 with only 2 bricks, there is nothing to "disperse" :) Probably, Lizard is faster because replication is made by each chunkserver and not by the client http://moosefs.org/tl_files/mfs_folder/write862.png (image for MooseFS, but Lizard is a fork, it replicate in the same way) ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] Comparison with other SDS
On 14/11/2016 9:00 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: Can someone explain me why Lizard is 10 times faster than gluster? This is not a flame, I would only like to know the technical differences between these two software Its my understanding that with many/small file operations involving directory lookup etc on disperse volumes gluster has to check each directory on each brick set, which leads to very high latencies. This is where a metadata server is an advantage I guess. Of course if you're running a replica volume, non-dispersed you should only need to do lookups locally. It would be interesting to know if thats a optimization gluster does. -- Lindsay Mathieson ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Re: [Gluster-users] Comparison with other SDS
Hi Gandalf, Can you provide more information about your setup? How many nodes? What disk sizes? Are they VMs or physical machines? What is the speed of the network? What OS are you running Lizard on , and finally how are the disks setup? We use MooseFS, Nexenta, Gluster and Ceph here, and in our tests we see very little difference in speeds. Some of these setups have advantages with many clients writing at once. Thanks, - Mensagem original - De: "Gandalf Corvotempesta" Para: "gluster-users" Enviadas: Segunda-feira, 14 de novembro de 2016 9:00:00 Assunto: [Gluster-users] Comparison with other SDS I did a very simple and stupid LizardFS installation this weekend. Same configuration as gluster, same nodes, same disks. Both set with replica 2, same ZFS filesystem on each disks/bricks LizardFS installation took 10 minutes on all servers (1 client that i've also used as master and 2 chunkservers), Gluster took less than 5 minutes from 0 to a working cluster. (just apt-get, gluster peer probe and volume create) Performances: extracting this: https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/testing/linux-4.9-rc5.tar.xz took 45 minutes (forty-five minutes) on Gluster, 4 minutes (four minutes) on LizardFS. It's not a typo. 45 minutes vs 4. removing the whole directory tree: in Lizard less than 4 minutes, in gluster i've stopped the process after about 20 minutes. Both were configured with sharding (64M). LizardFS/MooseFS has this hardcoded. Can this be related to the metadata server? I don't think so. Gluster is able to know where a file is without asking to the brick servers. In fact, gluster should be faster, as there isn't any query to make to a metadata server when reading/writing. Failures: LizardFS detect properly a missing/corrupted (like bitrot) chunk but I was unable to understand it's recovery process. I've not tried the bit-rot feature in gluster. Can someone explain me why Lizard is 10 times faster than gluster? This is not a flame, I would only like to know the technical differences between these two software ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
[Gluster-users] Comparison with other SDS
I did a very simple and stupid LizardFS installation this weekend. Same configuration as gluster, same nodes, same disks. Both set with replica 2, same ZFS filesystem on each disks/bricks LizardFS installation took 10 minutes on all servers (1 client that i've also used as master and 2 chunkservers), Gluster took less than 5 minutes from 0 to a working cluster. (just apt-get, gluster peer probe and volume create) Performances: extracting this: https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/testing/linux-4.9-rc5.tar.xz took 45 minutes (forty-five minutes) on Gluster, 4 minutes (four minutes) on LizardFS. It's not a typo. 45 minutes vs 4. removing the whole directory tree: in Lizard less than 4 minutes, in gluster i've stopped the process after about 20 minutes. Both were configured with sharding (64M). LizardFS/MooseFS has this hardcoded. Can this be related to the metadata server? I don't think so. Gluster is able to know where a file is without asking to the brick servers. In fact, gluster should be faster, as there isn't any query to make to a metadata server when reading/writing. Failures: LizardFS detect properly a missing/corrupted (like bitrot) chunk but I was unable to understand it's recovery process. I've not tried the bit-rot feature in gluster. Can someone explain me why Lizard is 10 times faster than gluster? This is not a flame, I would only like to know the technical differences between these two software ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
