On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, David Nalley wrote:
Gluster currently doesn't proclaim running VM images as one of its
strong points, although many do use it in that capacity. A few months
back a well funded group attempted to use Gluster as storage for their
CloudStack instance and were unable to tune performance to acceptable
levels. In the end they abandoned their gluster efforts and moved to
ceph for their distributed storage. That said, I wouldn't expect any
distributed storage solution to get close to DAS speed. If you are
willing to live with the downsides of DAS, it is almost always going
to be faster.
And the point of the comparison was not to say "DAS is sooo much better".
The point of the comparison was to see if we can improve the gluster
performance some or if we should tailor our use of each specifically based
on workload/type of use. The other point was to simply be aware of the
difference.
We use gluster in other places (fedorahosted) and quite like it. Doesn't
mean it is perfect for every case but the only way we're going to be sure
is to benchmark. That's all I was trying to provide.
-sv
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
