I don't recall the numbers, but when I did that reads were about as fast as regular local reads. Also if the post below refers to an older version of glusterfs, then things might have changed a lot since then. The quick-read translator combined with 3.x version was supposed to help a lot for this situation and it's a relatively recent addition to the project. Chris ----- "Count Zero" <countz at gmail.com> wrote: > On May 4, 2010, at 3:25 PM, pkoelle wrote: > > > From our testing we found gluster with many small files to be rather > slow (GigE). Each open() will go over the network and will effectively > kill read performance (5-7 MB/sec). We tried to serve webapps with > many small files and startup time was not tolerable. > > > How about performance in 'replicate' mode (AFR), where you set a > preferred volume to be the local volume? > Would you still get the same bad performance with that? > > It's just unclear to me in which configuration you experiences the > sub-optimal performance. > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
