Jerker Nyberg jerker at Update.UU.SE
Sat Nov 10 09:57:46 UTC 2007


I compared local disk, NFS and GlusterFS with bonnie++ on my old nodes 
(Athlon 1 GHz), and seeks/s was 43 seeks/s compared to ~180 for local disk 
and ordinary NFS. I guess FUSE etc have overhead compared to a a kernel 

For large file transfers both NFS and GlusterFS saturated a fast ethernet 
network. When using 200 Mbit/s NFS scaled up, but not really GlusterFS. I 
do however believe that this is a limitation processors but I'm not really 

I will do some tests the following week with nodes with P4 2.8 GHz and 
gigabit. Here are the old results anyway:

(The main good thing with GlusterFS is of course that many servers may be 
used in parallell so even if a single server has slightly more overhead 
than a kernel solution with NFS, more servers may be added and the files 
be distributed among them.)

However, I havn't tried MogileFS yet. :)

Jerker Nyberg.

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:

> Hi,
> Anyone here have a deployment of GlusterFS?  I have a client who's having a 
> hard time getting their application updated to use MogileFS to store and get 
> files.   GlusterFS, if it works, would let them keep their filesystem mounted 
> storage while getting some of the benefits of Mogile.
> Any thoughts?
> - ask
> -- 
> -

More information about the mogilefs mailing list