On Monday 13 February 2012 06:33:47 you wrote: > I would love to see the numbers you get for dbench....as I have been doing > exstensive testing with iozone and would like to be able to compare numbers > to see that we are coming to the same conclusions. If you would like to > see the basics of what I have been testing please look at > http://community.gluster.com and look for the performance question. You > can add your information there as well so we have it documented for easy > look up by others. If there is anything I can to do help out with your > testing please let me know. @Bryan and Brian: Due to time-management reasons I only got to do the tests yesterday. And it proved to be the same as I have encountered before in physics: A quick test is done quite fast. But when you look at the preliminary results and evaluate a real test-program, you have to do it right in the first place. My results from yesterday evening are incomplete and seem to have a lot of unreproducible artifacts. What was interesting is that pure-linux-nfs from node2 to node1 had roughly the same results as glusterfs on node2 to a single- brick volume on node1... I will do some real tests on the cluster at work. The same cluster I just free'd from using gfs2:-) So the comparisons would be: 1. single local disk 2. pure nfs between the nodes 3.1 glusterfs (aka fuse-mount) with single-brick volumes across network 3.2 glusterfs with dual-brick/dual-node distributed volume 3.3 glusterfs with dual-brick/dual-node replicated volume 4.X same as 3.x but with glusterfs-mount from node3 5.X same as 3.x but with nfs-mount from node3 6. (bonus) 3x2 three nodes, two bricks per node, replicate2, distributed big volume mounted via glusterfs on one node. + mounted on all nodes. + mounted on one virtual machine via glusterfs and nfs. All of that with the same dbench-call and a reasonable test-time. At least this time my boss won't complain that I introduce a new technology without first presenting a white-paper. ;-) Do you have more inputs for the test-regime? Have fun, Arnold -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120215/7590e86a/attachment.pgp>
