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
I have been doing some real world comparisons between the two for a while now, as we were/are using GlusterFS in production, but 2.0 is much slower than 1.4.0RC and lost MAC support... If you would like details, I can put together my numbers and such and mail them to you, just drop me some email directly, as I think the lustre people don''t want us talking gluster in here. Oh, and we are most likely going to move to lustre, if that helps out for now :) ----- "Nick Jennings" <nick at creativemotiondesign.com> 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 > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
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 > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > 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 (craig.tierney at noaa.gov)