Am Donnerstag, 22. April 2010 08:33:14 schrieb Janne Aho: > Hi, > > Today we have a storage system based on NFS, but we are really concerned > about redundancy and are at the brink to take the step to a cluster file > system as glusterfs, but we have got suggestions on that lusterfs would > have been the best option for us, but at the same time those who > "recommended" lusterfs has said that Oracle has pulled the plug and put > the resources into OCFS2. > If using lusterfs in a production environment, it would be good to know > that it won't be discontinued. > > Will there be a long term future for lusterfs? > Or should we be looking for something else for a long term solution? > > Thanks in advance for your reply for my a bit cloudy question.
Hi, for me Lustre is a very good option. But you also could consider a system composed from - corosync for the cluster communication - pacemaker as a cluster resource manager - DRBD for the replication of data between nodes in a cluster and - NFS or - OCFS2 or GFS or ... especially the NFS option provides you with a high available NFS server on real cluster stack all managed by pacemaker. Greetings, -- Dr. Michael Schwartzkopff MultiNET Services GmbH Addresse: Bretonischer Ring 7; 85630 Grasbrunn; Germany Tel: +49 - 89 - 45 69 11 0 Fax: +49 - 89 - 45 69 11 21 mob: +49 - 174 - 343 28 75 mail: mi...@multinet.de web: www.multinet.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: 85630 Grasbrunn Registergericht: Amtsgericht München HRB 114375 Geschäftsführer: Günter Jurgeneit, Hubert Martens --- PGP Fingerprint: F919 3919 FF12 ED5A 2801 DEA6 AA77 57A4 EDD8 979B Skype: misch42 _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss