Aur?lien ROUGEMONT wrote: > will this be ok for a web servers farm ? > what dies it mean ? What is the most common bs= equivalent for a www > server ? Do i have to change the block size of the underlying filesystem ? > > (by the way, i've managed to get the same results with an opensolaris > 2009.06 + glusterfs 3.0.3) > > I would be glad to get some more explanations about this > > Thank you all for taking the time to answer to my wonderings. I face myself to the same interrogations. In addition to the results with "dd" posted before, I have done some benchmarks with the "postmark" tool this morning, which is relatively easy to simulate webserver accesses to the filesystem with. I'm also a bit dubious regarding the GlusterFS performances in a web farm environment. Here are some comparaisons from the same client to both an NFS (v3) server and a "RAID-1" GlusterFS cluster (postmark was set with "1000 base files" and for "50000 transactions"): As GlusterFS Client, with all default translators enabled: - 200 transactions per seconds - data read: 642 kilobytes/s - data written: 670 kilobytes/s As NFS Client - 961 transactions per seconds - data read: 3.10 megabytes/s - data written: 3.24 megabytes/s (see details at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dg4cv5kw_74ptxfqqgq) Important notice: the NFS server used here is in production and under a quite heavy load. We should expect even better results (by far) if that NFS server were 100% dedicated to this benchmark! I'm now wondering if GlusterFS is indeed a good choice for a webserver farm filer despite of its very interesting features in term of reliability and scalability. Like Aur?lien, I'd appreciate your comments on this topic! Thanks in anticipation and best regards, -- Olivier
