[Gluster-users] NFS Mount vs. Gluster mount

Niels de Vos ndevos at redhat.com
Mon Jul 6 07:24:42 UTC 2015

On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 08:05:02PM -0700, Jordan R. Willis wrote:
>   Hello,
> I have been using NFS to mount my gluster volumes and they have been
> working pretty well. But I just realized how easy it is to mount
> volumes using glusterfs.
> mount -t glusterfs glusterserver:/myvol /mymount
> I used NFS because I was just so used to it. So I was wondering will I
> have to look out for any performance hits, pitfalls or gotchas if I
> just use a glusterfs mount? I was looking for some documentation
> comparing them but couldn’t find anything except
> (https://joejulian.name/blog/nfs-mount-for-glusterfs-gives-better-read-performance-for-small-files/)

One thing to keep in mind, is that when you mount the Gluster Volumes on
the local Gluster Storage Servers, you should normally use the GlusterFS
protocol. With NFSv3 it is only possible to have one service on a server
handling locks. This means, either the Gluster/NFS service can track
locking, or the NFS-client can use locks, not both.

It is possible to work around this restriction by disabling locking, but
that is not recommended for most users and their use cases.

Also note that the FUSE mount has an integrated fail-over mechanism,
where as that is not the case for NFS. If the NFS-server goes down that
was used for mounting, the IP-address should probably migrate to an
other storage server that is still available (with pacemaker/ctdb/..).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20150706/5a33701b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list