Comparison with other SDS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I did a very simple and stupid LizardFS installation this weekend.
Same configuration as gluster, same nodes, same disks. Both set with
replica 2, same ZFS filesystem on each disks/bricks

LizardFS installation took 10 minutes on all servers (1 client that
i've also used as master and 2 chunkservers), Gluster took less than 5
minutes from 0 to a working cluster. (just apt-get, gluster peer probe
and volume create)

Performances:
extracting this:
https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/testing/linux-4.9-rc5.tar.xz
took 45 minutes (forty-five minutes) on Gluster, 4 minutes (four
minutes) on LizardFS. It's not a typo. 45 minutes vs 4.

removing the whole directory tree: in Lizard less than 4 minutes, in
gluster i've stopped the process after about 20 minutes.

Both were configured with sharding (64M). LizardFS/MooseFS has this hardcoded.

Can this be related to the metadata server? I don't think so. Gluster
is able to know where a file is without asking to the brick servers.
In fact, gluster should be faster, as there isn't any query to make to
a metadata server when reading/writing.

Failures: LizardFS detect properly a missing/corrupted (like bitrot)
chunk but I was unable to understand it's recovery process. I've not
tried the bit-rot feature in gluster.

Can someone explain me why Lizard is 10 times faster than gluster?
This is not a flame, I would only like to know the technical
differences between these two software
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users



[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Development]     [Linux Filesytems Development]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux