I need to create a redunant 2-linux machines configuration so that the files on server1:/dir are in sync with the files on server2:/dir
I managed to configure GlusterFs to do this but while it works pretty fine with large files it works awfully slow when many small files are involved.
To understand better: a 150MB archive with 50K files is normally unpacked in 3-4 seconds on the regular file system but in more than 15 minutes on the GlusterFS parition!
After much reading and testing I couldn't significantly improve this.

I was wondering anyone has experience with another clustered file system that is capable of handling many small files better than glusterFS. Or if you have another suggestion on what should I try for keeping a dir on 2 servers in sync.

closed as off-topic by Falcon Momot, Dave M, Bryan, Scott Pack, Jenny D Jul 8 '13 at 7:29

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions seeking product, service, or learning material recommendations are off-topic because they tend to become obsolete quickly. Instead, describe your situation and the specific problem you're trying to solve." – Falcon Momot, Dave M, Scott Pack, Jenny D
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • How far apart are these machines, and what does the network look like? You have to take latency into account, every write or meta-data operation has to wait for both the local disk and the remote network acknowledgement to complete. Any "synchronous" file-system replication technology (GlusterFS, DRBD, or whatever) will have this same requirement. – rmalayter Sep 25 '12 at 13:05
  • They are in the same datacenter, on a 100MB connection with 0.1ms latency. – Alex Flo Sep 25 '12 at 13:17
  • What are you using as storage backend (SAN, iSCSI, DRBD, ...)? – Nils Oct 6 '12 at 21:08
  • @Nils - its gigabit connection, I was wrong. Still slow nevertheless. Storage: commodity SATA. – Alex Flo Oct 8 '12 at 8:25
  • Did you try using glusterfs via nfs instead of the fuse client? It usually works a lot faster for smaller files. Sill if you need something faster maybe drbd would be better. – Jure1873 Dec 11 '12 at 16:51

DRBD does a RAID-1 over the network which might be closer to what you want. I still have not found it to be terribly fast though.

  • Do you have it installed on some servers? I was curious if you could tell me how much it would take for example to unpack a kernel archive. – Alex Flo Sep 25 '12 at 12:48
  • But if you run it in dual-primary configuration then you still need a distributed lock manager to avoid write conflicts. AFS might be a better solution to support writes at both ends. – symcbean Sep 25 '12 at 14:27

DRBD is sort of an alternative to glusterFS in that my 50K files test was completed in 40 seconds instead of 15+minutes.
My conclusion to this is that glusterFS seems fit for not-so-many large files and that DRBD works better when many small files are involved.
I know its an "apple vs pears" comparison but it it may save someone some hours of work.

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