Brian J Mingus wrote:
We recently purchased a new cluster and I have been advocating the use of
glusterfs. I have a lot of experience on the user side with nfs and my
feeling is that it has poor performance. I suggested gluster which got
relayed to our vendor and this is what they relayed back to me:
- Suggests we stay away from glusterfs and gfs
- glusterfs is not mature
- We need a stable parallel file system. nfs is stable, glusterfs is not.
- Using gluster would be adding complexity and removing reliability.
You have all of this hardware, why not test it and prove its utility
within your organization? IMO, you have to consider The One Truth about
vendors: You can't trust 'em.
Personally, I've found NFS to out-perform GlusterFS and on two occasions
now have had to switch back to it from a glusterfs rollout. That is
likely configuration-dependent though, so it's hard to really point my
finger at GlusterFS itself. And it's worth noting that using NFS means
I'm not using a parallel filesystem, so there is no redundancy, and
redundancy is worth a lot.
John
--
John Madden
Sr UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
