Am Sonntag 13 April 2008 11:09:36 schrieben Sie: > Sascha Ottolski wrote: > > if you have the time, you might wanna check the list archive for > > some posting of mine, which unfortunately doesn't give you a > > solution, but may convince you that you're not alone :-) In my > > experiments, I couldn't get much more than 900 requests/second > > pulled from my cluster (being small image files, 5-50 KB in size). > > I'm sorry for the late reply, I've been quite busy the last days. But > back on topic: > > Here it gets interesting, as this doesn't match my experience at all. > > I currently cannot prove that serving static files with lighttpd from > a glusterfs mount is any slower than from a local file system. I can > serve 20000 (20k) requests per second on a quad core box. Though the > glusterfs export and mount is currently on the same box. hmm, do you try many files, or only some? I did my tests with mostly random access to more than 10,000 files. > > However from tracing lighttpd, it seems that it somehow notices the > difference and adjusts its behaviour. On a local file system files > are open()ed for every request, on a glusterfs mount it keeps files > open until the stat cached expires (1 second). > > So serving static files is perfect for me and therefor I don't see > much reason for mod_glusterfs for lighty currently. > > Can you please double check that you have mounted your backend file > system with noatime, and that you have I think I did in my test, it's definetely the case on the production cluster. > > server.stat-cache-engine = "simple" > server.max-fds = 100000 > > in lighttpd.conf? interesting, I really did almost no tweaking, for neither of the webservers I tested. Cheers, Sascha
