I was just reading the Lustre site this morning. I have run PVFS on a very small cluster and found it easy to install and worked quite well. It also supports a lot more OS's than do other distributed filesystems. We are currently running Ibrix on a larger setup but I am not too happy with it, nor their tech support....
>From what I understand Lustre offers redundancy in the form of server failover, and I think I read at their site files can be striped across luns in a raid5 fashion to give even a little more protection. I don't think pvfs offers any redundancy yet, but I am not sure since it's been over 6 months since I looked at it and I am a newb to boot. Joe Dries Kimpe wrote: > Installation wise, > compared to lustre, PVFS is unbelievable easy to install... > > Greetings, > Dries > > > Pappas, Bill schreef: >> >> >> >> > I'm looking for some feedback from luster and pvfs users. >> >> > >> >> > Specifically ---I'm interested in any thoughts on why one would go >> to luster or pvfs >> >> > for their hpc file system needs. >> >> > What fundamentally makes pvfs different from lustre? >> >> > I realize that one may claim (that for specific requirements) luster >> >> > or pvfs may be more suitable or just plain better. >> >> > So....I'd like to know which requirement(s) led you to luster or pvfs? >> >> > I would definitely like to know any limitations you've seen in either >> >> > fs. Installation complications? Scalabilty. Reliability. Speed. >> >> > _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-users
