[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gluster-devel] Local vs unify
From: |
Gareth Bult |
Subject: |
Re: [Gluster-devel] Local vs unify |
Date: |
Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:33:38 +0100 (BST) |
>Are there some benchmrks available about this ?
I'm not entirely sure how useful benchmarks are, certainly in this context. As
demonstrated by the benchmarks currently on the site, it's quite possible to
make them show pretty much whatever you want if you pick your own context.
Gluster REALLY is quick in some contexts, certainly I can make Gluster look
quick compared to NFS if we're talking about access to a single file or copying
larger files. If on the other hand we're talking smaller files (i.e. many real
world situations) then Gluster falls flat. "find" on a large gluster FS can
take minutes rather than seconds on a local FS (for example).
It may of course be I'm doing it all wrong .. however (!) if I am, given the
time I've spent and the fact that I do have it all working, there may be room
for improvement when it comes to the documentation (!)
>local storeage CAN be notable
Note; gluster (in particular AFR) on large files is currently flawed (IMHO).
gluster on lots of small files is, as far as I can see flawed in the context of
being too slow compared to local file-system access. This is not to say that
Gluster is not useful or that issues cannot be fixed.
You might be advised to setup your own test framework and test with your own
data to get a true measure of how Gluster will perform for "you" in "your"
environment ... Gluster is SO flexible, generic benchmarks can often be nothing
more than speculation..
Just to clarify; I think Gluster's general design is second to none .. I just
there there are still a few implementation glitches to work through ...
Gareth.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alain Baeckeroot" <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:04:55 AM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Local vs unify
Le samedi 26 avril 2008, Gareth Bult a écrit :
> Technically, if you have local storage on each node then GlusterFS/Unify is a
> useful solution, but the performance overhead compared to local storeage can
> be notable.
>
Are there some benchmrks available about this ?
Regards
Alain Baeckeroot
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
- [Gluster-devel] Does gluster suit my need?, Alsan Wong, 2008/04/25
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Does gluster suit my need?, Gareth Bult, 2008/04/25
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Does gluster suit my need?, Alsan Wong, 2008/04/25
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Does gluster suit my need?, Gareth Bult, 2008/04/25
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Does gluster suit my need?, Alsan Wong, 2008/04/25
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Does gluster suit my need?, Gareth Bult, 2008/04/26
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Does gluster suit my need?, Alsan Wong, 2008/04/26
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Local vs unify, Alain Baeckeroot, 2008/04/27
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Local vs unify,
Gareth Bult <=
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Local vs unify, Brandon Lamb, 2008/04/27
- Re: [Gluster-devel] Local vs unify, Amar S. Tumballi, 2008/04/28