[Gluster-users] Throughout over infiniband

Mon Sep 10 13:14:00 UTC 2012

Well, I would say there is a reason, if the Gluster client performed as expected.
Using the Gluster client it should in theory access the file(s) directly from the nodes where they reside and not having to go though a single node exporting the NFS folder which would then have to gather the file.
Yes the NFS has all the caching stuff but if the Gluster client behaviour was  similar it should be able to get similar performance which doesn't seem to be what has been resported.
I did tests myself using Gluster client and NFS and NFS got better performance also and I believe this is due the caching.

Fernando

-----Original Message-----
From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] On Behalf Of Stephan von Krawczynski
Sent: 10 September 2012 13:57
To: Whit Blauvelt
Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org; Brian Candler
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Throughout over infiniband

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:06:51 -0400
Whit Blauvelt <whit.gluster at transpect.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:13:11AM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > [...]
> > If you're lucky you reach something like 1/3 of the NFS performance.
> [Gluster NFS Client]
> Whit

There is a reason why one would switch from NFS to GlusterFS, and mostly it is redundancy. If you start using a NFS-client type you cut yourself off the "complete solution". As said elsewhere you can as well export GlusterFS via kernel-nfs-server. But honestly, it is a patch. It would be better by far if things are done right, native glusterfs client in kernel-space.
And remember, generally there should be no big difference between NFS and GlusterFS with bricks spread over several networks - if it is done how it should be, without userspace.

--
MfG,
Stephan
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users at gluster.org
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users