I was fetching a single file with wget. I tried this with small (a few kb) and larger (several MB) files and got the same results: a wget from local disk took about .001 seconds and a wget to glusterfs took .14 seconds. Is this a valid way to test? Chris _____ From: anand.avati@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:anand.avati@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anand Avati Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:29 AM To: Christopher Hawkins Cc: gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: glusterfs as root filesystem Sort of. I did use that but I could never get it to actually cache anything. My reads never got quicker than the first one, no matter many times I called the same files... But specifically I've heard talk from people asking about using local storage for caching, which is not supported under the io-cache translator. So I would use that if it became available, and if not, I'll eventually have to figure out why io-cache isn't working. On what files were you not getting the speedup? on executables? or others? if one shot of activity was exceeding the default cache-size value (32M) then you may have to tune your priority and cache-size parameters to get any caching effect. avati -- It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -- Hofstadter's Law
