On 01/03/2014 01:59 AM, Mikhail T. wrote:
[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
[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
On 01/02/2014 06:26 PM, Mikhail T. wrote:
We are building a new web-serving farm here. Believing, like most
people, that the choice of the technology does not affect performance in
read-dominated work-loads (such as ours), we picked GlusterFS for its
rich feature set.
[...]
As mentioned above
We are building a new web-serving farm here. Believing, like most
people, that the choice of the technology does not affect performance in
read-dominated work-loads (such as ours), we picked GlusterFS for its
rich feature set.
However, when we got to doing some testing, GlusterFS-mounted shares
lo
