I've been running this solution for more than a year, because NFS in effect stopped (33Kbit/s and a horrific load on the server) when copying big file trees. A quick test right now shows kernel compile on gluserfs: real 17m35.994s user 4m8.740s sys 0m47.560s locally (I don't run nfs anymore): real 4m42.005s user 3m51.270s sys 0m31.200s on GigEth. The speed on doing ls -l is near to local disk speed. The load are very smal. I'm using 3ware sata controllers. Regards Einar On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:37 -0700, Brandon Lamb wrote: > Has anyone replaced nfs with glusterfs using no afr/unify, just a pure > nfs replacement? > > I ask this as a way to take a baby step into using glusterfs, first > going from nfs to glusterfs, then when these quirks that are going > around in recent threads about afr are worked out switching to > replication. > > BUT, original most important question, anyone seen that glusterfs is > faster, better than using an nfs server? > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel -- Einar Gautun einar.gautun@xxxxxxxxxxx Statens kartverk | Norwegian Mapping Authority 3507 Hønefoss | NO-3507 Hønefoss, Norway Ph +47 32118372 Fax +47 32118101 Mob +47 92692662
