On 05/02/2012 02:22 PM, lejeczek wrote: > thanks for posting > I'd be curious to see what kind of disproportion you get between: raw > fs / single brick volume with local fuse mountpoint which effectively > points back to the same raw fs > from my quick tests I saw massive gap between the two > thanks > >> >> Tests are: >> Single Disk (direct, no gluster) >> Gluster Replicated >> Gluster Striped Replicated >> Gluster Distributed Replicated >> Gluster Stripe >> Hi All, I would like to clarify few things before some one does performance runs on GlusterFS. First of all, GlusterFS is not designed/intended to be used as a local filesystem, ie, without n/w in picture it should not be used for any kind of benchmark. Please do let us know the exact use cases to use GlusterFS without n/w in picture, and we can consider that in our designs. If you are comparing GlusterFS's performance to your local file system (like XFS/ext4/btrfs etc), performance numbers would look bad, for sure (at least for short future). This is the main reason, we recommend understanding the use-case before deploying GlusterFS. Try to run with similar workload on the setup to run benchmarks, because the pattern of fops, type of volume, type of hardware/ type of network, all of these has a effect on benchmark numbers you would get. Regards, Amar
