I've tested the worst case scenario on purpose, by increasing number of threads it was able to get more throughout, but it didn't change linearly. Thanks for the links =) On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Gambit15 <dougti+gluster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3 February 2017 at 11:09, Momonth <momonth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I ran some benchmarking on SSD enabled servers, 10Gb connected, see >> the file attached. >> >> I'm still looking at GlusterFS as a persistent storage for containers, >> and it's clear it's not going to compete with local file system >> performance. > > > Well that's kind of a given, with the standard rep 3, you're doing a sort of > RAID 5 across the network. However depending on your use case & setup, you > can get performance boosts akin to RAID 10 setups, multiplied bu the number > of nodes/bricks in the cluster. > > http://blog.gluster.org/category/performance/ > https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws001/guided_trek/Performance_in_a_Gluster_Systemv6F.pdf > > I couldn't find the particular doc, but I've seen some ludicrous throughputs > from configs using multiple nodes running SSDs in RAID 10 and peering over > Infiband. > > D > _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
