[Gluster-users] Some benchmarks for anyone that's interested..

Amar Tumballi amarts at redhat.com
Wed May 2 12:09:55 UTC 2012

On 05/02/2012 02:22 PM, lejeczek wrote:
> thanks for posting
> I'd be curious to see what kind of disproportion you get between:  raw
> fs / single brick volume with local fuse mountpoint which effectively
> points back to the same raw fs
> from my quick tests I saw massive gap between the two
> thanks
>> Tests are:
>> Single Disk (direct, no gluster)
>> Gluster Replicated
>> Gluster Striped Replicated
>> Gluster Distributed Replicated
>> Gluster Stripe

Hi All,

I would like to clarify few things before some one does performance runs 
on GlusterFS.

First of all, GlusterFS is not designed/intended to be used as a local 
filesystem, ie, without n/w in picture it should not be used for any 
kind of benchmark. Please do let us know the exact use cases to use 
GlusterFS without n/w in picture, and we can consider that in our designs.

If you are comparing GlusterFS's performance to your local file system 
(like XFS/ext4/btrfs etc), performance numbers would look bad, for sure 
(at least for short future).

This is the main reason, we recommend understanding the use-case before 
deploying GlusterFS. Try to run with similar workload on the setup to 
run benchmarks, because the pattern of fops, type of volume, type of 
hardware/ type of network, all of these has a effect on benchmark 
numbers you would get.


More information about the Gluster-users mailing list