2007/2/9, Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> nice graph. but how does it look if you compare a single glusterfs >> brick with a single NFS brick? > > The purpose of glusterfs has never been to beat NFS in a point to point > throughput competition, sure. but my point is that comparing some large number of servers under protocol X to a single server under protocol Y is not all that meaningful. > since in real world there are a lot of requests > happening in parallel and it is more important to achieve a higher > aggregated bandwidth. surely a single glusterfs brick can handle more than one request at a time, though... > That being said, it is worthy to note that glusterfs is still better than > NFS in point-to-point (single NFS brick vs single glusterfs brick). > > On Gig/E - both nfs and glusterfs peak on the link speed for read. for write > glusterfs peaks on the link speed, but nfs did not that's odd, and indicates that the nfs config you tested was hitting disk limits. and unfortunately, that makes the comparison even less comprehensible. looking at the config again, it appears that the node might have just a single disk, which would make the results quite expected. > On IB - nfs works only with IPoIB, whereas glusterfs does SDP (and ib-verbs, > from the source repository) and is clearly way faster than NFS. "clearly"s like that make me nervous. to an IB enthusiast, SDP may be more aesthetically pleasing, but why do you think IPoIB should be noticably slower than SDP? lower cpu overhead, probably, but many people have no problem running IP at wirespeed on IB/10GE-speed wires... _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
As glusterfs is a parallel filesystem, I think that a more valuable
experiment is comparing it against another parallel filesystem, like
pvfs2 or lustre, in a distributed environment. This could show the
performance of glusterfs in its intended setting.
- [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (GNU Cluster File Syst... Anand Babu
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (GNU Cluster ... Mark Hahn
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (GNU Clus... Anand Avati
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (GNU ... Mark Hahn
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (... Kevin Ball
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BE... Mark Hahn
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (... Anand Avati
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (GNU Cluster ... Chris Samuel
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (GNU Cluster ... Bruno Rocha Coutinho
- Re: [Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (GNU Clus... Mark Hahn
- [Beowulf] Teraflop chip hints at the future Mitchell Wisidagamage
- Re: [Beowulf] Teraflop chip hints at th... Chris Samuel
- Re: [Beowulf] Teraflop chip hints a... Joe Landman
- Re: [Beowulf] Teraflop chip hi... Mark Hahn
- Re: [Beowulf] Teraflop chi... Vincent Diepeveen
- Re: [Beowulf] Teraflop chi... Richard Walsh
- Re: [Beowulf] Teraflop... Joe Landman
- Re: [Beowulf] Teraflop... Alan Louis Scheinine
- Re: [Beowulf] Teraflop... Robert G. Brown