On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Kaiting Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Thomas S Hatch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If you have any questions about MooseFS feel free to ask me, it has been > an > > amazing application for my company! > > > > I'm about to do some minor hijacking of your application thread. How does > MooseFS compare with Lustre? --Kaiting. > > -- > Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/ > Hijack away, as long as I get the vote :) So the big difference with MooseFS is that it will run on commodity hardware and can be set up by a monkey. So you don't need hardware HPC equipment, just a bunch of computers with hard drives. This means it can scale and works well for both small and very large deployments. I set it up to test it on just a couple of virtual machines and it ran like a dream, and it also runs like a dream on my company's 165 TB setup supporting over 12 million files. There are a lot of other differences, but all in all, MooseFS is much MUCH more KISS than Lustre, effectively delivers the same product, is very fast for a distributed file system and is a snap to set up! Grab a couple of machines and try it out!
