Nick Jennings wrote: > Hey Guys, > > Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I was wondering if > anyone has any thoughts on GlusterFS? It seems kind of like a user-space > version of Lustre, not cut out for huge clusters, but well suited for > smaller clusters without some of the resource requirements of Lustre. > > I know it's not specifically Lustre related, but I don't know of a > better list of experts to post my questions to :) > > -Nick > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >
At our site, we have a 300TB Lustre filesystem pushing over 5GB/s served to over 600 clients. I have tried GlusterFS and have a small filesystem using it now that is accessible from a small subset of nodes, it doesn't get much load but it was designed for that. It is not intended to be a primary filesystem to our clusters. To me, Lustre is an optimized scalable parallel filesystem that is works well at many scales, including the very large. GlusterFS allows you to build a distributed NAS, but the translator capability provides much power and flexibility to filesystems that I haven't seen elsewhere. Since GlusterFS is user-space (I think the client will one day be a kernel module) and it runs of existing filesystems, it is much easier to get running. I have never tried to exercise it like our Lustre installation to compare stability or scalability. Craig -- Craig Tierney ([email protected]) _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
