On 01/19/2011 04:24 PM, Ryan Williams wrote:
I have been tweaking and researching for a while now and can't seem to
get "good" performance out of Gluster.
I'm using Gluster to replace an NFS server (c1.xlarge) that serves
files to an array of web servers, all in EC2. In my tests Gluster is
significantly slower than NFS on average. I'm using a distributed
replicated volume on two (m1.large) bricks:
Hmmm ... we looked through similar concepts (with non-virtualized hosts)
recently, and found that for large block sequential IO, gluster is
faster (fewer context switches and less network stack to traverse).
There was an about 50-60% penalty (basically context switching in the
fuse layer) associated with the smaller blocks.
To work aruond this, we suggested local caching (if possible) or RAMdisk
caching. Use gluster for initial distribution of the files, and then
copy them to local storage. Or turn up the client side gluster caching
so that after initial read, the files come from local cache.
--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics Inc.
email: [email protected]
web : http://scalableinformatics.com
http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster
phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
fax : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
