I'm having a similar problem, I'm looking into DRBD but the downside here will be, if the head server goes down the clients won't automatically switch over to the slave server... > -----Original Message----- > From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org > [mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery Soo > Sent: 29 November 2009 09:30 > To: gluster-users at gluster.org > Subject: DRBD like performance? > > I had the intention of using GlusterFS to replace DRBD to setup a > clustered/redundant webserver but so far the performance is > about 7-8x > slower than native due to the live writing feature that > GlusterFS uses. > Is it possible to have a setup like DRBD to improve performance? > > Basically I want to know if I can get the same functionality and > performance of DRBD? I have 2 servers and with DRBD each > server would > perform all reads locally (giving native performance) and > does not write > data until it is fully written locally (delayed write I guess > you could > say). This way you get the replication but still get native > performance. > > Is there a current way to setup GlusterFS like this in order > to get this > 'DRBD-like' functionality? > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >
