On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:52:16PM +0800, Liu Yuan wrote: > At your convenience :) Maybe two (small cluster and bigger one) would > suffice. With cached FD pool, we might not lose that much performance > for a quick thought, though, but this is quite radical change of design, > numbers will definitely help it in. Kazum, how do you think of this change?
What do you define as a small cluster? I would expect to see substancial differences with a three node cluster, but then again I would advice people to not even think about sheepdog for a setup that small. I'd say performance numbers only start to really matter for 20,30+ nodes, or does anyone disagree? -- sheepdog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
