Hello Stephan, did a quick test with the same fileset only replaced distribute by replicate on the two servers. This was with the GlusterFS patched Fuse though. Filesystem cache was flushed on all boxes between the tests. write: 127s read: 106s Compared with the distribute results replicate seems to perform worse. Here's the distribute results on the exact same setup again: write: 90s read: 60s Martin Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:02:34 +0200 > Martin Reissner <mreissner at wavecon.de> wrote: > >> [...] >> NFS: >> write: 74s >> read: 36s >> >> GlusterFS 1 Server: >> write: 332s >> read: 59s >> >> GlusterFS 2 Servers with Distribute: >> write: 331s >> read: 60s > > Can you produce the same test for replicate, too? > A really interesting setup for people who want to get rid of NFS... > In theory the minimum time (caused by a FE network) should be below 23s for > read and write or maybe 46s for replicate write case. I know you have GBit > ethernet, but your disks won't cope with that anyway, so one would be content > with a factor 2 in real life. Nevertheless your test really shows that NFS is > not that bad. > A local-disk FUSE fs would be an interesting comparison, too.
