Hi, just a question ...
Would SAS disks be better in situation with lots of seek times using GlusterFS? 2014-09-22 23:03 GMT+03:00 Jeff Darcy <[email protected]>: > > > The biggest issue that we are having, is that we are talking about > > -billions- of small (max 5MB) files. Seek times are killing us > > completely from what we can make out. (OS, HW/RAID has been tweaked to > > kingdom come and back). > > This is probably the key point. It's unlikely that seek times are going > to get better with GlusterFS, unless it's because the new servers have > more memory and disks, but if that's the case then you might as well > just deploy more memory and disks in your existing scheme. On top of > that, using any distributed file system is likely to mean more network > round trips, to maintain consistency. There would be a benefit from > letting GlusterFS handle the distribution (and redistribution) of files > automatically instead of having to do your own sharding, but that's not > the same as a performance benefit. > > > I’m not yet too clued up on all the GlusterFS naming, but essentially > > if we do go the GlusterFS route, we would like to use non replicated > > storage bricks on all the front-end, as well as back-end servers in > > order to maximize storage. > > That's fine, so long as you recognize that recovering from a failed > server becomes more of a manual process, but it's probably a moot point > in light of the seek-time issue mentioned above. As much as I hate to > discourage people from using GlusterFS, it's even worse to have them be > disappointed, or for other users with other needs to be so as we spend > time trying to fix the unfixable. > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users -- Best regards, Roman.
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
