On 02/21/2011 09:53 AM, David Lloyd wrote: > I'm working with Paul on this. > > We did take advice on XFS beforehand, and were given the impression that it > would just be a performance issue rather than things not actually working. Hi David XFS works fine as a backing store for GlusterFS. We've deployed this now to many customer sites, and have not run into issues with it. > We've got quite fast hardware, and are more comfortable with XFS that ext4 > from our own experience so we did our own tests and were happy with XFS > performance. There are many reasons to choose XFS in general, and there are no issues with using it with GlusterFS. Especially on large file transfers. > Likewise, we're aware of the very poor performance of gluster with small > files. We serve a lot of large files, and we're now moved most of the small > files off to a normal nfs server. Again small files aren't known to break > gluster are they? Small files are the bane of every cluster file system. We recommend using NFS client with GlusterFS for smaller files, simply due to the additional caching you can get out of the NFS system. Regards, Joe -- Joseph Landman, Ph.D Founder and CEO Scalable Informatics Inc. email: landman at scalableinformatics.com web : http://scalableinformatics.com http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 fax : +1 866 888 3112 cell : +1 734 612 4615
