i'm not sure wether i got everything right. you are using glusterfs as a
substitute for nfs. if you are using it on infiniband, then you probably
could get some performance with combining io-threads, write-behind and
as many raid-5 partitions the controller could handle. on ethernet i
thing glusterfs isnt yet fast enough for io-killers, but probably it
could be performing better than nfs using perfomance-translators on the
client side.
Io Noci
Sean Davis schrieb:
We have a largish NAS, a single linux box, with 40 drives. They are
currently configured as 2 RAID-6 arrays. The machine has two RAID
controllers. This serves as a file system for a small cluster with
about 10 nodes, 60 processors, total. We have some very IO-intensive
applications that simply crush our NAS. Load averages go to 40+ and
we see about 40% wait. The RAID is incredibly fast with about 700
MB/second serial read, but the sustained concurrent access is much
lower. We would like to look at how gluster could be used to speed up
concurrent access to this single machine. Any insights into using
gluster in this type of situation? We thought about slicing up the 40
drives into 8 RAID-5 partititions and then serving them using
gluster. We wanted to stay away from full AFR given the increased
cost/TB. We are mainly interested in knowing whether we need another
machine or whether we can make do with our current NAS after
reconfiguring to use gluster.
Thanks,
Sean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
