> 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, since in real world there are a lot of requests
happening in parallel and it is more important to achieve a higher
aggregated bandwidth.
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
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.
avati
--
Shaw's Principle:
Build a system that even a fool can use,
and only a fool will want to use it.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
