On 09/10/2012 08:56 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:06:51 -0400
Whit Blauvelt <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:13:11AM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
[...]
If you're lucky you reach something like 1/3 of the NFS
performance.
[Gluster NFS Client]
Whit
There is a reason why one would switch from NFS to GlusterFS, and mostly it is
redundancy. If you start using a NFS-client type you cut yourself off the
"complete solution". As said elsewhere you can as well export GlusterFS via
kernel-nfs-server. But honestly, it is a patch. It would be better by far if
things are done right, native glusterfs client in kernel-space.
And remember, generally there should be no big difference between NFS and
GlusterFS with bricks spread over several networks - if it is done how it
should be, without userspace.
Just to be clear, when you export a gluster volume via NFS, the clients
are using kernel NFS. The gluster NFS server is the only thing in user
space.
The redundancy you do lose is the automatic fail-over to the other
servers if the NFS server the client mounted from fails.
If you're using replication, you do not lose that when you chose to use NFS.
--
Kaleb
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
