On 6 September 2011 21:24, Reinis Rozitis <r at roze.lv> wrote: > Question was about reads though and then the answer is it is perfectly fine > (and faster) to do reads directly from the filesystem (in replicated setups) > if you keep in mind that by doing so you lose the Glusters autoheal eature > ?- eg if one of the gluster nodes goes down and there is a file written > meanwhile when the server comes up if you access the file directly it won't > show up while it would when accessing it via the gluster mount point (you > can work arround it by manually triggering the self heal). Thanks, that's very helpful. >> I've heard that reads from glusterfs are around 20 times slower than from >> ext3: > > "20 times" might be fetched out of thin air but of course there is a > significant overhead of serving a file from a gluster which basically > involves network operations and additional meta data checks versus fetching > the file directly from iron. The figure came from a PostMark test quoted in the link in my original post: http://groups.drupal.org/node/61908#comment-193143 . Thanks again, Dave
