On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 at 10:04pm, Rudi Ahlers wrote
>
>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin
>> <centos.admin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the problem with Lustre's style of distributed storage which
>>> Gluster points out is that the bottleneck is the meta server which
>>> tells clients where to find the actual data. Gluster supposedly scales
>>> with every client machine added because it doesn't use a meta server,
>>> file locations are determined using some kind of computed hash.
>>>
>>
>> But who uses gluster in a production environment then? I have seen
>> less posts (both on forums and mailing lists) about Glusteter, than
>> lustre.
>
> I just finished testing a Gluster setup using some of my compute nodes.
> Based on those results, I'll be ordering 8 storage bricks (25 drives each)
> to start my storage cluster. I'll be using Gluster to a) replicate
> frequently used data (e.g. biologic databases) across the whole storage
> cluster and b) provide a global scratch space. The clients will be the
> 570 (and growing) nodes of my HPC cluster, and Gluster will be helping to
> take some of the load off my overloaded NetApp.
>
> They also have a page on their website listing self-reported users
> <http://www.gluster.org/gluster-users/>.
>
> --
> Joshua Baker-LePain
> QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin
> UCSF
> _______________________________________________
Thanx for the feedback. This is what I hoped to get from someone
running lustre :)
But I guess I'll look at gluster instead.
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
