On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 15:39 +0530, mohan L wrote: > Dear All, > > I am benchmarking NFS and GlusterFS . I running Iozone in multi > thread mode .from the test conclued that GlusterFS performs better > then NFS in single server and single client at file size 100MB. Any > commant and Idea . Is it correct? .Here I am using file size 100MB > and 128 KB record size .In 100 MB file size GlusterFS performs better > then NFS . but when I am testing 128 KB file size and 4KB record > size ,in this case NFS performs better then GlusterFS .what is the > reson for that? GlusterFS will perform better only in case of large > file size ? > GlusterFS 1.3.x uses a simple but inefficient protocol, which has quite large overhead for each operation - so bulk throughput is fine but lots of little operations have high latency. GlusterFS 1.4/2.0 uses a binary protocol that is much more efficient, you'll find that much more competitive for smaller files. I think you can expect version 2.0 to be released within the next few weeks, though if you get and test the release candidate and report your success or any bugs it might happen sooner :) John. -- Serious Rails Hosting: http://www.brightbox.co.uk
