Hi Bharata, I am interested to see the performance for read and writes separately. Aggregated will probably be much influenced by the read performance. Interesting the last figures, seems quiet a significant performance gain using the QEMU-GlusterFS. See if you can get the results for read and writes separately. Best regards, Fernando -----Original Message----- From: Bharata B Rao [mailto:bharata.rao at gmail.com] Sent: 03 September 2012 10:01 To: Fernando Frediani (Qube) Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org Subject: Re: QEMU-GlusterFS native integration demo video On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Fernando Frediani (Qube) <fernando.frediani at qubenet.net> wrote: > Hi Bharata > Thanks for this, very useful. > > Would you be able to specify tests with mainly reads and writes. As far as I know there is a big hit and poor performance on writes in normal fuse mounts. Ok, here are the aggregated bandwidth numbers from a quick FIO (4 seq writes using libaio) write test: Base: 189667KB/s QEMU-GlusterFS native: 150635KB/s QEMU-GlusterFS FUSE: 43028KB/s So as you can see, native is much better than FUSE, but still doesn't match the base numbers. When I say base, it means that the guest is run directly from glusterfs brick (w/o gluster FUSE mount or using QEMU-GlusterFS native driver). > Are you using IOmeter or bonnie ? FIO at the moment. Plan to include more benchmark numbers in future. Any help here would be appreciated :) > > Seems the results with fuse and the native qemu-glusterfs are pretty similar, am I right ? No, QEMU-GlusterFS native numbers are way better than FUSE. Let me quote the numbers from the URL I gave earlier: Base: 63076KB/s QEMU-GlusterFS native: 53609KB/s QEMU-GlusterFS FUSE: 29392KB/s Regards, Bharata.
