Le Fri, 23 May 2008 14:12:47 -0400 vous écriviez: > Greetings, > > Having rolled out GFS, lustre, gluster and found each of them > lacking (in one way or another), I'm wondering whether anyone > could give me an assessment of whether PVFS could be > appropriate in a business environment which, I suspect, is > much different where it is typically deployed.
What did you find lacking in these different solutions? > My company does image processing and we presently have ~700TB > of image data on about 25 nexsan satabeast disk storage arrays. > The data is presented to a large number of windows > clients via about 8-10 windows file servers. > The main caveat will be samba performance over PVFS2. While it isn't really bas, it's lower on the same hardware than without PVFS2, especially with windows clients using basic windows access. Real life numbers : linux client => server (no pvfs2) 70MB/s linux client => server (with pvfs2) 50MB/s windows client => server (without pvfs) 50MB/s windows client => server (with pvfs) 30MB/s notice how windows sucks compared to linux anyway :) PVFS performance is much better with FTP (tested with vsftpd). It's even better if you can use native pvfs access instead of going through the VFS layer, of course. If you're using in-house applications, it may be worth the time modifying them to use MPI to access data on PVFS, you'll then have tremendous performance. > So, does anyone know anyone who trusts PVFS for this type of > use? My company does. We implemented PVFS2 successfully for a couple of projects for large broadcasters and some other applications. -- -------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel Florac www.intellique.com -------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-users
