I have tried benchmarking GlusterFS vs NFS on Amazon Web Services (AWS) using a m1.medium sized EC2 instance. We use the AWS EBS as the block store, with a XFS file system. Running Ubuntu 12.04 using the standard packages.
I used iozone and dd to do the benchmark. I realise these are not comparable as benchmarking tools, but I am getting some strange results.
My results in MB/s are below (all tests are run on the client):
using: iozone -c -e -i 0 -+n -r 64k -s 1000M -t 2 Direct to EBS GlusterFS NFS GlusterFS + NFS 37.5 26.8 99.8 21.1
using: dd if=/srv/test of=/dev/null bs=64k count=16k Direct to EBS GlusterFS NFS GlusterFS + NFS 97.0 40.8 58.3 23.8
The direct to EBS doing well using dd, but with iozone it is actually slower than NFS. Why?
In general I have seen that GlusterFS is typically 1.5 to 2 times slower than NFS. Are these figures realistic for GlusterFS?