On 01/22/2013 09:28 AM, F. Ozbek wrote: > > However, it just turns out that we have the data and the tests, so we > will > post it here. I have this feeling that the moment we do, Jeff will start Please provide more information on the "data and the tests". What are they, what do they entail, what is meant by failing, passing, etc.? This information is helpful to everyone, regardless of which systems do poorly/well. OTOH, please be prepared for a fairly intensive look at your testing methodology. We've found in our own experience, that unless the tests really do what they are purported to do, that end users wind up generating less than valuable data, and subsequently, decisions based upon this are as often as not, fundamentally flawed. I cannot tell you how many times we've dealt with flawed tests that didn't come close to measuring what people thought they did. Its quite amusing to be attacked with results of these tests as well. Using poor tests and then bashing vendors with them is more of a reflection of the user than of the vendor. Honestly, we have some issues with Gluster that we've raised off list with John Mark and others (not Jeff, but I should make the points with him as well). There are reasonable and valid critiques of it, and it is not appropriate for all workloads. There are good elements to it, and ... less good ... elements to it, in implementation, design, etc. I agree with Jeff that its bad form to come on the list and say "Gluster fails, X works" in general. Its far more constructive to come on the list and say "these are the tests we use, and these are the results. Gluster does well here and here, X does well here and here." Freedom of speech isn't relevant here, the mailing list and product are privately owned, and there is no presumption of such freedom in this case. I'd urge you to respect the other list members and participants, by positively contributing as noted above. The "gluster fails, X rulez" doesn't quite fit this. So ... may I request that, before you respond to further posts on this topic, that you create a post with your tests, how you ran them, your hardware configs, your software stack elements (kernel, net/IB, ...), details of the tests, details of the results? Without this, I am hard pressed to take further posts seriously. There are alternatives to Gluster. The ones we use/deploy include Ceph, Fraunhofer, Lustre, and others. We did review MooseFS, mostly for a set of media customers. It had some positive elements, but we found that performance was underwhelming for our streaming and reliability tests (c.f. http://download.scalableinformatics.com/disk_stress_tests/fio/ ). Our hardware are our JackRabbit units, and our siFlash units (links not provided so as to avoid spamming). Native system performance was 2.5GB/s for the JackRabbit, about 8GB/s for the siFlash. GlusterFS got me to 2GB/s on JackRabbit, and 3.5GB/s on siFlash. MooseFS, when we tested (about a year ago), was about 400-500 MB/s on JackRabbit, and about 600 MB/s on siFlash. We tried some networked tests to multiple clients (and John Mark has an email from me around that time) where we were sustaining 2+ GB/s across 2x JackRabbit units with GlusterFS. I've never been able to get above 700 MB/s with MooseFS on any of our test cases. I've had tests fail on MooseFS, usually when a network port becomes overloaded, its response to this was anything but graceful. We had considered using it with some customers, but figured we should wait for it to mature some more. We feel the same way about btrfs, and until recently, about Ceph. The two latter have been coming along nicely. Ceph is deployable. W.r.t. Gluster, it has been getting better, with a few caveats (again, John Mark knows what I am talking about). Its not perfect for everything, but its quite good at what it does. Regards, Joe -- Joseph Landman, Ph.D Founder and CEO Scalable Informatics Inc. email: landman at scalableinformatics.com web : http://scalableinformatics.com http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 fax : +1 866 888 3112 cell : +1 734 612 4615
