Dear everyone, thank you for your replies. I have some additional data that have clarified issues for me a bit: I have repeated my tests without AFR (basically replicating the plain NFS setup) > > CP-A MAKE > > local disk < 5sec < 0.3sec > > NFS (100MBit) 55sec+-2sec < 2sec > > glusterfs (I) 4m29sec 17sec > > glusterfs (II) 4m05sec 18sec glusterfs w/o AFR 45+-2 sec 9sec <==NEW So, most of the poor performance is due to AFR. Note that the copy actually is now faster than NFS. Interestingly, make still runs much slower (although compared to the actual compile time, this overhead should be negligible in practice) Also, upon running some NFS benchmarks between the two servers, I noted some strange results, letting me suspect some creeping hardware issues. So, I guess I'll (a) wait for glusterfs 1.4.x and (b) look out for some better hardware to test things in the meantime. Sorry if I caused confusion; I should have checked some of these things earlier. Best regards, Stefan Boresch -- Stefan Boresch Institute for Computational Biological Chemistry University of Vienna, Waehringerstr. 17 A-1090 Vienna, Austria Phone: -43-1-427752715 Fax: -43-1-427752790
