very bad performance on small files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Max Ivanov <ivanov.maxim at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > time tar cf - M | pv > /dev/null 15.8 MB/sec (native) 3.48MB/sec
> >> > (FUSE) 254 Kb/sec (NFS)
> >>
> >
> > This test shows why glusterfs native protocol is better than NFS when you
> > need to scale out storage. Even with a context switch overhead on the
> client
> > side, glusterfs scores better due to the "clustered nature" of its
> protocol.
> > NFS has to undergo a second hop when it has to fetch data not available
> in
> > the server it has mounted from whereas for glusterfs it is always a
> single
> > hop to any server it wants to get data from.
>
> My tests was done on 2 bircks setup mounted in replica mode, thereby
> all needed data was avaiable on NFS node and there was no need to do
> additional hop.
>
>
NFS still undergoes the second hop to complete lookups, verify sanity of
copies etc. The fops are - lookup(), open(), release().

Avati


[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Development]     [Linux Filesytems Development]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux