[Gluster-users] Re :Performance of GlusterFs and NFS

[John Leach]

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 15:39 +0530, mohan L wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I am benchmarking NFS and GlusterFS  . I running Iozone in multi
> thread mode .from  the test conclued that GlusterFS performs better
> then NFS in single server and single client  at file size 100MB. Any
> commant and Idea . Is  it correct? .Here I am using file size 100MB
> and 128 KB record size .In 100 MB file size GlusterFS performs better
> then NFS . but when I am testing 128 KB file size and 4KB record
> size ,in this case NFS performs better then GlusterFS .what is the
> reson for that?  GlusterFS will perform better only in case of   large
> file size ? 
> 
GlusterFS 1.3.x uses a simple but inefficient protocol, which has quite
large overhead for each operation - so bulk throughput is fine but lots
of little operations have high latency.

GlusterFS 1.4/2.0 uses a binary protocol that is much more efficient,
you'll find that much more competitive for smaller files.

I think you can expect version 2.0 to be released within the next few
weeks, though if you get and test the release candidate and report your
success or any bugs it might happen sooner :)

John.
-- 
Serious Rails Hosting: http://www.brightbox.co.uk