[Gluster-users] GlusterFS performance with small files.

David Whiteman davew at supanet.net.uk
Wed Apr 4 11:15:46 UTC 2012


Thanks for the reply. Changing to mbox is not really an option, we are 
stuck with MailDir format.

All current cluster filesystems I've read into seem to have problems 
with small files.

I guess the only alternative seems to be a DRBD setup, but this would 
limit me to 2 nodes only and was the reason I was looking into GlusterFS.

Anyone know of any alternatives to GlusterFS that offer similar 
performance (with very small files) to NFS?


On 03/04/12 17:40, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
> A bunch of small files is terrible performance. Really not much you
> can do about that. Store each mailbox in a single file. MailDir format
> is definitely going to suck.
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:05 AM, David Whiteman<davew at supanet.net.uk>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am currently looking into GlusterFS to use as a storage cluster for our
>> email storage. I want to mount the storage from different servers (or VMs),
>> services accessing the storage include exim, courier-imapd, courier-pop3d.
>> Our emails are stored in MailDir format, which is many small files. I have
>> read that GlusterFS doesn't perform very well with small files, is this
>> still the case?
>> I would like to achieve similar (or better) performance to our current NFS
>> setup, with the added redundancy that GlusterFS provides.
>> Is there any utilities I can use to test the performance?
>> Thanks in Advance
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list