On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Thomas S Hatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> The difference is that Gluster is a nightmare! > > The problem with gluster is that the replication is tiered, and that there > is no metadata. The client is then the master, this means that if you > connect to gluster with a mis-configured client you can have large scale > data corruption. > > Next since the replication of data is tiered you don't have true > replication, so only the gluster server you connect to to save the data has > the correct data, if that server goes down the replications are old and you > have data corruption. > > The gluster devs actually had to recall gluster 3.1 because the data > corruption was rampant. > > The difference between gluster and MooseFS is that MooseFS works! > > MooseFS also has a cool web frontend :) > > We were using gluster and the business cost became catastrophic, picking up > the peices was a nightmare. > > MooseFS saves data to replication nodes in paralell! MooseFS maintains a > master metalogger so client connections are agnostic. > MooseFS maintains metadata replication so you can restore is something > happens to the master. > > I take it you don't like FUSE? EVERYBODY is doing it ;) > > I am looking forward to Ceph, which does not require fuse, but I don't > think > it is going to be production ready for at least a year, and MooseFS easily > compete with Ceph IMHO. > > If there are GlusterFS devs in the room, please disregard the previous rant > :) > Thanks for the very thorough answer. And yes I hate the idea of a filesystem in userspace. Everyone knows the FS's should be in kernel space! Mostly it's the fact that in my opinion bypassing the kernel's caching mechanism is entirely impractical for a high performance FS. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways your application looks really good. Good luck! --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
