Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There's a good chance that I'll end up running Drupal on several front-end nodes over the next six months, and I'd like to know if there is a good reason not to have a single instance of Drupal stored on Gluster. We'll be using APC, so presumably most of Drupal would end up in the local opcode cache, meaning there wouldn't be a ton of reads- am I wrong about that?

share|improve this question

`You can use quick-read and io-cache to improve small file performance. 3.0 release has some more optimizations for small files. But I agree with you, if these are static PHP pages, you are better off with rsync to make local copies.

share|improve this answer
or even better, csync2: – Justin Jan 1 '10 at 18:31

Because drupal relies heavily on file_exists statements which can not be cached in APC and causes glusterfs to check with the quorum of servers to see if the file exists. So crazy horrible performance.

share|improve this answer

I believe there'll be a large network overhead when Drupal asks the Gluster to give him tons of small files.

Ensure first you have a copy of all these files on each node, and then proceed.

share|improve this answer
Umm, if he had a copy of all the files on each node, he wouldn't need GlusterFS, would he? – rodjek Dec 10 '09 at 12:50
He may use GlusterFS features to access files that are not so often used ;) Some file archives, for instance. – kolypto Dec 11 '09 at 9:18

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.