You have to remember that when you are writing with NFS you're writing to one node, where as your gluster setup below is copying the same data to two nodes; so you're doubling the bandwidth. Dont expect nfs like performance on writing with multiple storage bricks. However read performance should be quite good. liam On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Hiren Joshi <josh at moonfruit.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently evaluating gluster with the intention of replacing our > current setup and have a few questions: > > At the moment, we have a large SAN which is split into 10 partitions and > served out via NFS. For gluster, I was thinking 12 nodes to make up > about 6TB (mirrored so that's 1TB per node) and served out using > gluster. What sort of filesystem should I be using for the nodes > (currently on ext3) to give me the best performance and recoverability? > > Also, I setup a test with a simple mirrored pair with a client that > looks like: > volume glust3 > type protocol/client > option transport-type tcp/client > option remote-host glust3 > option remote-port 6996 > option remote-subvolume brick > end-volume > volume glust4 > type protocol/client > option transport-type tcp/client > option remote-host glust4 > option remote-port 6996 > option remote-subvolume brick > end-volume > volume mirror1 > type cluster/replicate > subvolumes glust3 glust4 > end-volume > volume writebehind > type performance/write-behind > option window-size 1MB > subvolumes mirror1 > end-volume > volume cache > type performance/io-cache > option cache-size 512MB > subvolumes writebehind > end-volume > > > I ran a basic test by writing 1G to an NFS server and this gluster pair: > [root at glust1 ~]# time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/glust2_nfs/nfs_test > bs=65536 count=15625 > 15625+0 records in > 15625+0 records out > 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 1718.16 seconds, 596 kB/s > > real 28m38.278s > user 0m0.010s > sys 0m0.650s > [root at glust1 ~]# time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/glust/glust_test bs=65536 > count=15625 > 15625+0 records in > 15625+0 records out > 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 3572.31 seconds, 287 kB/s > > real 59m32.745s > user 0m0.010s > sys 0m0.010s > > > With it taking almost twice as long, can I expect this sort of > performance degradation on 'real' servers? Also, what sort of setup > would you recommend for us? > > Can anyone help? > Thanks, > Josh. > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://zresearch.com/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20090708/f7e99936/attachment-0001.htm>
