On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:48:03 +0100 Brian Candler <B.Candler at pobox.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: > > While trying to figure out the cause of the bottleneck i've realised > > that the bottle neck is coming from the client side as running > > concurrent test from two clients would give me about 650mb/s per each > > client. > > Yes - so in workloads where you have many concurrent clients, this isn't a > problem. It's only a problem if you have a single client doing a lot of > sequential operations. That is not correct for most cases. GlusterFS always has a problem on clients with high workloads. This obviously derives from the fact that the FS is userspace-based. If other userspace applications eat lots of cpu your FS comes to a crawl. > [...] > Have you tried doing exactly the same test but over NFS? I didn't see that > in your posting (you only mentioned NFS in the context of KVM) And as I said above NFS (kernel-version) does have no problem at all in these scenarios. And it does not have the GlusterFS-problems with multiple concurrent FS action on the same client, too. Neither there is a problem with maximum bandwidth. -- Regards, Stephan
