> I'm a phd student and as a part of my research I've compared > performance of different distributed storage systems (Gluster, > Openstack, Compuverde). Compuverde? That's new to me. Oh wow. "Software defined storage just got 400 % more efficient." "Compuverde Gateway read and writes structured data 250 % more efficient(sic) than well-known market competitors." "The Compuverde software will help businesses lower their energy costs with(sic) up to 50%" I have not seen such a comprehensive pile of BS for a long time - thank you for making my day. The 400% claim? http://compuverde.com/object-store/performance/ Vaguely-described tests against an unspecified competitor. Finally: "The Compuverde Object Store software features patented and patent-pending technology" The PHB will be impressed. Regarding the PDF evaluation: I only skimmed it, but what exact version of glusterfs did you use? There have been a lot of changes between 3.2.5 and 3.3.0 for example. Also: "3.1.4 Gluster ... The communication protocol between the load generating clients and the proxy servers is NFS/CIFS" So which was it? And what are "proxy servers" in the context of a Gluster test? Gluster supports NFS exporting natively from one brick. CIFS requires using Samba to re-export a glusterfs mount. However I would have thought using the native glusterfs FUSE client would be a fairer test. Regards, Brian.
