<div dir="auto">Last time I've read about tiering in gluster, there wasn't any performance gain with VM workload and more over doesn't speed up writes...</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">Il 10 ott 2017 9:27 PM, "Bartosz Zięba" <<a href="mailto:kontakt@avatat.pl">kontakt@avatat.pl</a>> ha scritto:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Have you thought about using an SSD as a GlusterFS hot tiers?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bartosz<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10.10.2017 19:59, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
2017-10-10 18:27 GMT+02:00 Jeff Darcy <<a href="mailto:jeff@pl.atyp.us" target="_blank">jeff@pl.atyp.us</a>>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Probably not. If there is, it would probably favor XFS. The developers<br>
at Red Hat use XFS almost exclusively. We at Facebook have a mix, but<br>
XFS is (I think) the most common. Whatever the developers use tends to<br>
become "the way local filesystems work" and code is written based on<br>
that profile, so even without intention that tends to get a bit of a<br>
boost. To the extent that ZFS makes different tradeoffs - e.g. using<br>
lots more memory, very different disk access patterns - it's probably<br>
going to have a bit more of an "impedance mismatch" with the choices<br>
Gluster itself has made.<br>
</blockquote>
Ok, so XFS is the way to go :)<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.gluster.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>