Both are example of potential shared filesystems... GFS is even pitched as a low cost alternative to a SAN or NAS (see redhats docs).
I would agree that the technologies are vastly different. GFS is a clustering Filesystem, where as iSCSI is a block level device similar to FC and FCAL. Regards, Sean On 25-Jan-2007, paul k?lle wrote: > Sean Cook schrieb: > > I would actually spend a little more and start looking at iSCSI for attached > > storage. You can generally pickup some decent chassis on ebay for not a lot > > of change and it gives you a lot more flexibility. > > > > GFS is ok if you don't want to mess around with a SAN but it has no where > > near the performance of fiber or iSCSI attached storage. > Aren't those apples and oranges? I thought iSCSI is a block level > protocol and doesn't do locking and such whereas GFS does... > > sorry, noob wrt above > Paul > -- > [email protected] mailing list > -- [email protected] mailing list
