On 12/06/2015 3:41 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
... and the test evaluation was on repurposed Lustre hardware so it was a bit odd, ...
Agree, it was old (at least by now) DDN kit (SFA10K?) and not ideally suited for Ceph (really high OSD per host ratio).
Sage's thesis or some of the earlier papers will be happy to tell you all the ways in which Ceph > Lustre, of course, since creating a successor is how the project started. ;) -Greg
Thanks Greg, yes those original documents have been well-thumbed; but I was hoping someone had done a more recent comparison given the significant improvements over the last couple of Ceph releases.
My superficial poking about in Lustre doesn't reveal to me anything particularly compelling in the design or typical deployments that would magically yield higher-performance than an equally well tuned Ceph cluster. Blair Bethwaite commented that Lustre client-side write caching might be more effective than CephFS at the moment.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
