On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:03:14AM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > 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. It's only "obvious" if your application is CPU-bound, rather than I/O-bound. > > [...] > > 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. I think the OP needs to test the specific workload - I think it was iozone - using NFS. I saw figures for iozone local access to disk, and iozone over glusterfs, but not iozone over NFS. Regards, Brian.
