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
