[Gluster-users] NFS replacement

Shehjar Tikoo shehjart at gluster.com
Mon Aug 31 14:18:46 UTC 2009

Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Hello all,
> after playing around for some weeks we decided to make some real world tests
> with glusterfs. Therefore we took a nfs-client and mounted the very same data
> with glusterfs. The client does some logfile processing every 5 minutes and
> needs around 3,5 mins runtime in a nfs setup.
> We found out that it makes no sense to try this setup with gluster replicate
> as long as we do not have the same performance in a single server setup with
> glusterfs. So now we have one server mounted (halfway replicate) and would
> like to tune performance.
> Does anyone have experience with some simple replacement like that? We had to
> find out that almost all performance options have exactly zero effect. The
> only thing that seems to make at least some difference is read-ahead on the
> server. We end up with around 4,5 - 5,5 minutes runtime of the scripts, which
> is on the edge as we need something quite below 5 minutes (just like nfs was).
> Our goal is to maximise performance in this setup and then try a real
> replication setup with two servers.
> The load itselfs looks like around 100 scripts starting at one time and
> processing their data.
> Any ideas?
What nfs server are you using? The in-kernel one?

You could try the unfs3booster server, which is the original unfs3
with our modifications for bug fixes and slight performance
improvements. It should give better performance in certain cases
since it avoids the FUSE bottleneck on the server.

For more info, do take a look at this page:

When using unfs3booster, please use GlusterFS release 2.0.6 since
that has the required changes to make booster work with NFS.


More information about the Gluster-users mailing list