[Gluster-users] Comparison with other SDS

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

I did a very simple and stupid LizardFS installation this weekend.
Same configuration as gluster, same nodes, same disks. Both set with
replica 2, same ZFS filesystem on each disks/bricks

LizardFS installation took 10 minutes on all servers (1 client that
i've also used as master and 2 chunkservers), Gluster took less than 5
minutes from 0 to a working cluster. (just apt-get, gluster peer probe
and volume create)

Performances:
extracting this:
https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/testing/linux-4.9-rc5.tar.xz
took 45 minutes (forty-five minutes) on Gluster, 4 minutes (four
minutes) on LizardFS. It's not a typo. 45 minutes vs 4.

removing the whole directory tree: in Lizard less than 4 minutes, in
gluster i've stopped the process after about 20 minutes.

Both were configured with sharding (64M). LizardFS/MooseFS has this hardcoded.

Can this be related to the metadata server? I don't think so. Gluster
is able to know where a file is without asking to the brick servers.
In fact, gluster should be faster, as there isn't any query to make to
a metadata server when reading/writing.

Failures: LizardFS detect properly a missing/corrupted (like bitrot)
chunk but I was unable to understand it's recovery process. I've not
tried the bit-rot feature in gluster.

Can someone explain me why Lizard is 10 times faster than gluster?
This is not a flame, I would only like to know the technical
differences between these two software