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
