[Gluster-users] very bad performance on small files

Anand Avati anand.avati at gmail.com
Mon Jan 17 09:32:59 UTC 2011


On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Max Ivanov <ivanov.maxim at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > time tar cf - M | pv > /dev/null 15.8 MB/sec (native) 3.48MB/sec
> >> > (FUSE) 254 Kb/sec (NFS)
> >>
> >
> > This test shows why glusterfs native protocol is better than NFS when you
> > need to scale out storage. Even with a context switch overhead on the
> client
> > side, glusterfs scores better due to the "clustered nature" of its
> protocol.
> > NFS has to undergo a second hop when it has to fetch data not available
> in
> > the server it has mounted from whereas for glusterfs it is always a
> single
> > hop to any server it wants to get data from.
>
> My tests was done on 2 bircks setup mounted in replica mode, thereby
> all needed data was avaiable on NFS node and there was no need to do
> additional hop.
>
>
NFS still undergoes the second hop to complete lookups, verify sanity of
copies etc. The fops are - lookup(), open(), release().

Avati


More information about the Gluster-users mailing list