[Gluster-users] Gluster single file I/O

[Nathan Stratton]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Keith Freedman wrote:

> is direct, a locally attached hard drive?
> a network filesystem will NEVER perform as well as a locally attached disk.

Odd, actually you should be able to make it preform BETTER, as you scale 
Lustre the I/O for even a single file scales.

> I think you're numbers aren't too unreasonable.
> You could probably improve your performance by adding some performance 
> translators.

I have them on the server, should I also put them on the client?

> Write behind would likely help you a bit.

Also, even DRBD is better and it is IPoIP, not raw infiniband:

[root at xen0 share]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/share/bar bs=1G count=8
8+0 records in
8+0 records out
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 60.8988 seconds, 141 MB/s


> At 06:59 PM 2/21/2009, Nathan Stratton wrote:
>
>> Direct:
>> [root at xen0 unify]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/sdb2/bar bs=1G count=8
>> 8+0 records in
>> 8+0 records out
>> 8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 51.3145 seconds, 167 MB/s
>> 
>> Gluster:
>> [root at xen0 unify]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/unify/foo bs=1G count=8
>> 8+0 records in
>> 8+0 records out
>> 8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 87.7885 seconds, 97.8 MB/s
>> 
>> Boxes are connected with 10 gig Infiniband so that should not be an issue.
>> 
>> http://share.robotics.net/glusterfs.vol
>> http://share.robotics.net/glusterfsd.vol
>> 
>>> <>
>> Nathan Stratton                                CTO, BlinkMind, Inc.
>> nathan at robotics.net                         nathan at blinkmind.com
>> http://www.robotics.net                        http://www.blinkmind.com
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>