On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:46:07PM +0100, Ed W wrote:
> Glusterf is the one which most interests me (active-active
> clustering), but it seems that the public forums are full of people
> with problems, but then a handful of folks who are very happy.
> Obviously you always hear most about the outliers, but it does
> suggest that there are quite a few subtleties with gluster? Anyone
> got anything to share?
In April, I've tested glusterfs between VServers (on different hosts),
as NFS replacement (I don't like the idea of having the host serving
NFS shares).
So, it was not real clustering, with replication, etc. (nor any
torture test), but I must admit it was pretty impressive performance
wise. Nothing can beat NFS kernel server, but at least glusterfs
doesn't seem to lag too far behind.
And it was without any optimization with some of the translators
(readahead, writebehind, cache) which should probably improve
performance a bit.
I've stopped testing because it doesn't support posix ACLs for now :(,
but some more tests are on my todo list.
Hih,
-- JFS.Received on Wed Jul 28 23:36:35 2010