On 01/19/2011 04:24 PM, Ryan Williams wrote: > I have been tweaking and researching for a while now and can't seem to > get "good" performance out of Gluster. > > I'm using Gluster to replace an NFS server (c1.xlarge) that serves > files to an array of web servers, all in EC2. In my tests Gluster is > significantly slower than NFS on average. I'm using a distributed > replicated volume on two (m1.large) bricks: Hmmm ... we looked through similar concepts (with non-virtualized hosts) recently, and found that for large block sequential IO, gluster is faster (fewer context switches and less network stack to traverse). There was an about 50-60% penalty (basically context switching in the fuse layer) associated with the smaller blocks. To work aruond this, we suggested local caching (if possible) or RAMdisk caching. Use gluster for initial distribution of the files, and then copy them to local storage. Or turn up the client side gluster caching so that after initial read, the files come from local cache. -- 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
