[Gluster-users] Gluster 3.3.0 on CentOS 6 - GigabitEthernet vs InfiniBand

Jeff Darcy jdarcy at redhat.com
Thu Oct 18 14:19:41 UTC 2012

On 10/18/2012 09:39 AM, Corey Kovacs wrote:
> My experiences so far were sort of disappointing until I found out a few key
> items about GlusterFS which I'd taken for granted.
> 1. Stripes are not what you might think. The I/O for a stripe does _not_ fan
> out as in a raid card. It's an unfortunate use of the term only describing and
> allowing you to store files larger than the max size of a single brick.

I'm not sure what you mean by "don't fan out" because stripe *will* issue
multiple requests in parallel.  It's just not that beneficial most of the time,
because the overhead of splitting and recombining writes tends to overwhelm the
advantage of parallelism.  Some people might have different results, especially
on faster networks, but we don't push it as a general-purpose performance
enhancer because it doesn't work that way for most people.

> 2. I/O is done in sync mode so cache coherency isn't an issue and to ensure the
> integrity of the data written.

Generally true only for metadata - not for data.  We do honor O_SYNC and such
when we see them, of course, but otherwise we're quite happy to buffer writes
in write-behind, cache reads in io-cache, etc.

> 3. The performance of a distributed volume far exceeds that of a stripe for my
> use. Again, depends on the size of the bricks.

...and the size of the I/O requests, and a bunch of other things.

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list