Should I mount GlusterFS as NFS or FUSE?

I'm using GlusterFS for a file storage cluster and my web apps.

I have two volumes, the storage and the web ones.

Currently I have the web one mounted as NFS, because FUSE was way too slow.

Now I was wondering if there's any big disadvantage and if I should mount the storage one as NFS too.

NFS uses the standard filesystem caching, the Native GlusterFS uses up application space RAM and is a hard-set number that must defined.

source

If you look at the documentation

The FUSE client allows the mount to happen with a GlusterFS round robin style connection. In /etc/fstab, the name of one node is used; however, internal mechanisms allow that node to fail, and the clients will roll over to other connected nodes in the trusted storage pool. The performance is slightly slower than the NFS method based on tests, but not drastically so. The gain is automatic HA client failover, which is typically worth the effect on performance.

So in summary: It depends on the requirements. When there is enough RAM available on the system and performance is not overall important FUSE seems to be the better choice.

I have one FTP mount under one native GlusterFS. I sent many files to this FTP and the performance was terrible. When I changed to an NFS mount the performance was much better than Native GlusterFS, in my case of course.