[Beowulf] GlusterFS 1.2-BENKI (GNU Cluster File System) -
Bruno Rocha Coutinho
coutinho at dcc.ufmg.br
Fri Feb 9 12:41:44 PST 2007
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.
2007/2/9, Mark Hahn <hahn at mcmaster.ca>:
>> 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
> 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
> 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
> That being said, it is worthy to note that glusterfs is still
> 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
> On IB - nfs works only with IPoIB, whereas glusterfs does SDP
> 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
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 at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
More information about the Beowulf