On 08/29/2012 05:16 AM, John Doe wrote: > 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. I have routinely used DRBD for things like this ... 2 servers, one a complete failover of the other one. Of course, that requires a 50+ TB file system on each machine.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
