<div dir="ltr">Hello,<div><br></div><div>is it 380MB in read or write ? What level of redundancy do you need?</div><div>do you really need nfs stack or just a mount point (and so be able to use native gluster protocol) ?</div><div><br></div><div>Gluster load is mostly put on clients, not server (clients do the sync writes to all replica, and do the memory cache)</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature">Cordialement,<br>Mathieu CHATEAU<br><a href="http://www.lotp.fr" target="_blank">http://www.lotp.fr</a></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-07-14 20:49 GMT+02:00 Forrest Aldrich <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:forrie@gmail.com" target="_blank">forrie@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm exploring solutions to help us achieve high throughput and scalability within the AWS environment. Specifically, I work in a department where we handle and produce video content that results in very large files (30GB etc) that must be written to NFS, chopped up and copied over on the same mount (there are some odd limits to the code we use, but that's outside the scope of this question).<br>
<br>
Currently, we're using a commercial vendor with AWS, with dedicated Direct Connect instances as the back end to our production. We're maxing out at 350 to 380 MB/s which is not enough. We expect our capacity will double or even triple when we bring on more classes or even other entities and we need to find a way to squeeze out as much I/O as we can.<br>
<br>
Our software model depends on NFS, there's no way around that presently.<br>
<br>
Since GlusterFS uses FUSE, I'm concerned about performance, which is a key issue. Sounds like a STRIPE would be appropriate.<br>
<br>
My basic understanding of Gluster is the ability to include several "bricks" which could be multiples of either dedicated EBS volumes or even multiple instances of the above commercial vendor, served up via NFS namespace, which would be transparently a single namespace to client connections. The I/O could be distributed in this manner.<br>
<br>
I wonder if someone here with more experience with the above might elaborate on whether GlusterFS could be used in the above scenario. Specifically, performance I/O. We'd really like to gain upwards as much as possible, like 700 Mb/s and 1 GB/s and up if possible.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>