On 09/10/2012 08:56 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:06:51 -0400 > Whit Blauvelt <whit.gluster at transpect.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:13:11AM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: >>> [...] >>> If you're lucky you reach something like 1/3 of the NFS >>> performance. >> [Gluster NFS Client] >> Whit > > There is a reason why one would switch from NFS to GlusterFS, and mostly it is > redundancy. If you start using a NFS-client type you cut yourself off the > "complete solution". As said elsewhere you can as well export GlusterFS via > kernel-nfs-server. But honestly, it is a patch. It would be better by far if > things are done right, native glusterfs client in kernel-space. > And remember, generally there should be no big difference between NFS and > GlusterFS with bricks spread over several networks - if it is done how it > should be, without userspace. > Just to be clear, when you export a gluster volume via NFS, the clients are using kernel NFS. The gluster NFS server is the only thing in user space. The redundancy you do lose is the automatic fail-over to the other servers if the NFS server the client mounted from fails. If you're using replication, you do not lose that when you chose to use NFS. -- Kaleb
