On 08/29/2012 04:07 AM, John Doe wrote: > From: isdtor <isdtor@xxxxxxxxx> >> I can't say anything about the RH Storage Appliance, but for us, >> gluster up to 3.2.x was most definitely not ready. >> ... >> We only started out with 3.0.x, and my impression was that development >> was focusing on new features rather than bug fixes. > From: David C. Miller <millerdc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> I'm using gluster 3.3.0-1 ... >> Been running this since 3.3 came out. I did quite a bit >> of failure testing before going live. So far it is working well. > I read that 3.3 was the first "RH" release. > Let's hope they did/will focus on bug fixing... > So I guess I will wait a little bit more. We use glusterfs in the CentOS build infrastructure ... and for the most part it works fairly well. It is sometimes very slow on file systems with lots of small files ... especially for operations like find or chmod/chown on a large volume with lots of small files. BUT, that said, it is very convenient to use commodity hardware and have redundant, large, failover volumes on the local network. We started with version 3.2.5 and now use 3.3.0-3, which is faster than 3.2.5 ... so it should get better in the future. I can recommend glusterfs as I have not found anything that does what it does and does it better, but it is challenging and may not be good for all situations, so test it before you use it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
