Aurélien ROUGEMONT wrote:
will this be ok for a web servers farm ?
what dies it mean ? What is the most common bs= equivalent for a www
server ? Do i have to change the block size of the underlying filesystem ?
(by the way, i've managed to get the same results with an opensolaris
2009.06 + glusterfs 3.0.3)
I would be glad to get some more explanations about this
Thank you all for taking the time to answer to my wonderings.
I face myself to the same interrogations. In addition to the results
with "dd" posted before, I have done some benchmarks with the "postmark"
tool this morning, which is relatively easy to simulate webserver
accesses to the filesystem with. I'm also a bit dubious regarding the
GlusterFS performances in a web farm environment.
Here are some comparaisons from the same client to both an NFS (v3)
server and a "RAID-1" GlusterFS cluster (postmark was set with "1000
base files" and for "50000 transactions"):
As GlusterFS Client, with all default translators enabled:
- 200 transactions per seconds
- data read: 642 kilobytes/s
- data written: 670 kilobytes/s
As NFS Client
- 961 transactions per seconds
- data read: 3.10 megabytes/s
- data written: 3.24 megabytes/s
(see details at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dg4cv5kw_74ptxfqqgq)
Important notice: the NFS server used here is in production and under a
quite heavy load. We should expect even better results (by far) if that
NFS server were 100% dedicated to this benchmark!
I'm now wondering if GlusterFS is indeed a good choice for a webserver
farm filer despite of its very interesting features in term of
reliability and scalability.
Like Aurélien, I'd appreciate your comments on this topic!
Thanks in anticipation and best regards,
--
Olivier
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
