From: Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
I am not too worried about bad performances.
I am afraid to get paged one night because the 50+ TB of the storage
cluster are gone followinf a bug/crash...
It would take days/weeks to set it back up from the backups.
If we were rich, I guess we would have two (or more) "geo-replicated" glusters and
be able to withstand one failing...
I would like the same trust level that I have in RAID.
JD
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
