And do either of them perform better than fuse mounts ? With native nfs, all data is routed through the server where it's mounted from, which makes HA and load balancing difficult. For pNFS, there is a single metadata server. How does that affect HA and load ? I thought one of the main goals of gluster was decentralized metadata. Where do the four options (fuse, native nfs, nfsv4, pnfs ) stand in terms of benefits and disadvantages ?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Julian <[email protected]> wrote: > nfs-ganesha is a much more feature rich nfs server that uses libgfapi to > access the gluster volume in userspace. This userspace solution avoids the > context switches like the native gluster nfs does, but adds support for > pnfs/nfsv4 and udp. > > From the development standpoint, they have a full set of developers > working only on and focused only on their nfs server whereas the gluster > version was implemented as a stop-gap to provide a solution where the > kernel nfs re-share was failing. > > I think nfs-ganesha is a better solution. There is integration work being > done in glusterfs to make its use seamless, so I suspect that's the > long-term nfs solution that will eventually replace gluster's native nfs. > > > On 08/12/2015 09:54 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hello Dears, > > can anybody explain advanteges / disadvantages of Ganesha NFS ?? > Will U reccomend me go through this way ?? > ( 4 node glusterFS ) > regs. > Pavel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing > [email protected]http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
