[Gluster-users] is glusterfs DHT really distributed?

Wei Dong wdong.pku at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 12:57:17 UTC 2009

I think TCP_NODELAY is critical to performance.  Actuall after spending 
a large number of unfruitful hours on glusterfs, I wrote my own simple 
shared storage with BerkeleyDB backend, and I found that enabling 
TCP_NODELAY on my system gives me nearly 10x readback throughput.  
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll definitely try that.

- Wei

Mark Mielke wrote:
> On 09/29/2009 03:39 AM, David Saez Padros wrote:
>>> The
>>> second is 'option transport.socket.nodelay on' in each of your
>>> protocol/client _and_ protocol/server volumes.
>> where is this option documented ?
> I'm a little surprised TCP_NODELAY isn't set by default? I set it on 
> all servers I write as a matter of principle.
> The Nagle algorithm is for very simple servers to have acceptable 
> performance. The type of servers that benefit, are the type of servers 
> that do writes of individual bytes (no buffering).
> Serious servers intended to perform well should be able to easily beat 
> the Nagle algorithm. writev(), sendmsg(), or even write(buffer) where 
> the buffer is built first, should all beat the Nagle algorithm in 
> terms of increased throughput and reduced latency. On Linux, there is 
> also TCP_CORK. Unless GlusterFS does small writes, I suggest 
> TCP_NODELAY be set by default in future releases.
> Just an opinion. :-)
> Cheers,
> mark

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list