Optimizing On GlusterFS Storage
You are viewing documentation for a release that is no longer supported. The latest supported version of version 3 is [3.11]. For the most recent version 4, see [4]
You are viewing documentation for a release that is no longer supported. The latest supported version of version 3 is [3.11]. For the most recent version 4, see [4]
Containerized GlusterFS Guidance for Databases
When you use Containerized GlusterFS for applications, follow the guidance and best practices provided in this topic so that you can make informed choices between gluster-block and GlusterFS modes based on your type of workload.
Tested Applications
In OKD 3.10, extensive testing was done with these (no)SQL databases:
Postgresql SQL v9.6
MongoDB noSQL v3.2
The storage for these databases originated from a Containerized GlusterFS storage cluster.
For Postgresql SQL benchmarking pgbench was used for database benchmarking. For MongoDB noSQL benchmarking YCSB Yahoo! Cloud Serving Benchmark was used for benchmarking and workloada,workloadb,workloadf were tested
Support Matrix
Database | Storage backend: GlusterFS | Turn off Performance Translators | Turn on Performance Translators |
Postgresql SQL | Yes |
|
|
MongoDB noSQL | Yes |
|
|
Database | Storage backend: gluster-block |
Postgresql | Yes |
MongoDB | Yes |
The performance translators for GlusterFS, as mentioned above, are already part of the database profile delivered with the latest Containerized GlusterFS images.
Test Results
For Postgresql SQL databases, GlusterFS and gluster-block showed approximately the same performance results. For MongoDB noSQL databases, gluster-block performed better. Therefore, use gluster-block based storage for MongoDB noSQL databases.