On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:24:34 AM Ravishankar N wrote: > XFS scales well when there is lot of meta data and multi-threaded I/O > involved [1]. Choosing a file system is mostly about running the kind of > workload you would expect your system to see, with your hardware > configuration and your version of the OS. If ext4 gives you better > performance when used as back end for gluster with your settings and > workload, there shouldn't be any reason why you cannot go with it. In the end I went with Option B :) - ZFS. Built in support for journal and data ssd caches, and of course, all the ZFS goodies, which will be very useful in the future. I tried dmCache, bcache and EnhanceIO with xfs and ext4. bcache was a buggy mess, dmcache was a pain in the ass to manage, EnhanceIO was pretty good. But I managed to generate data corruptions with all three. Also disk benchmarks (bonnie++, dd, CrystalDiskMark) gave wildly varying results that didn't bear much relationship to observed improvements. In the end I went with a series of app benchmarks that matched our usage. For those all of the above including zfs gave good improvements in roughly the same range. So all things being equal, zfs won out for being a well supported standard and all its other benefits. thanks for all the help and advise folks, sorry for being a pain :) though no doubt I will continue to be so. Cheers, from sunny BrizVegas. -- Lindsay
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
