Hey all, at our office we've justed discussed the question: Should we use one big glusterfs share or makes it more sense to use multilpe small shares. We are going to use glusterfs on multiple virtual instances which hosts multiple web applications. So we are thinking of providing for every web application an own glustershare. Not every web application is on every virtual instance so the glusterfs will stay small in number of nodes and data to store. The problem or question are - Does the glusterfs overhead eat my bandwith or the number of started glusterfs processes eat my memory? - How is the performance of write duration and read delay compared in the two situations? - Where are the limitations? (Size of glusterfs GB-TB-PB, number of mounted/started glusterfs's) I think it depens heavily on the values: I think with 5 virtual instances, 5 web applications and 100 MB per application, you'll say: "Boy, take one "big" share and come back, if you have real problems" :-) But whats about 500 virtual instaces, 1500 web applications and 500 GB per application, or the whole thing multiplied by 10 as often you want. Does someone has experience with similar "problems" or can give hints, why to use which configuration?! Best regards Tobias Wilken