[Gluster-users] Major performance problem with WRF

[Matt Lawrence]

> It is an unfair to compare clustered filesystems and local disk
> filesystems directly. You can try a few optimizations - the io-threads
> is pretty much useless on the client side in 1.4/2.0 branch (since the
> introduction of non blocking sockets). You can remove read-ahead too
> since I understand your IO pattern largely involves random IO, and for
> sequential IO glusterfs can achieve link max speed on Gig/E even
> without read-ahead. After these changes you might also want to try
> with and without write-behind because these performance translators
> are meant to be used with streaming IO.
>   

WRF is not the only thing running on the cluster.

Direct I/O of 1GB takes 2.7 seconds.  NFS takes 17 seconds.  Gluster 
takes 100 seconds.

> Do you have a comparison against NFS? (since you are using glusterfs
> in a single server mode anyways). Can you also post the test program
> which simulates your work load?
>   

I've already sent you a copy of the program

-- Matt