For those interested here are the results of my tests using Gluster 3.5.2. Nothing much better here neither...
shell$ dd bs=64k count=4k if=/dev/zero of=test oflag=dsync
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 51.9808 s, 5.2 MB/s
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 51.9808 s, 5.2 MB/s
shell$ dd bs=64k count=4k if=/dev/zero of=test2 conv=fdatasync
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 3.01334 s, 89.1 MB/s
On Friday, February 13, 2015 7:58 AM, Punit Dambiwal <hypunit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I have seen the gluster performance is dead slow on the small files...even i am using the SSD....it's too bad performance....even i am getting better performance in my SAN with normal SATA disk...
I am using distributed replicated glusterfs with replica count=2...i have all SSD disks on the brick...
root@vm3:~# dd bs=64k count=4k
if=/dev/zero of=test oflag=dsync
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 57.3145
s, 4.7 MB/s
root@vm3:~# dd bs=64k count=4k
if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 1.80093
s, 149 MB/s
Thanks,
Punit
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
