On Wednesday 24 December 2008 12:52:43 Jure Pečar wrote: > Hello, > > I'm following the opensource cluster filesystem area for quite some time > now. I was playing with gfs back then when it was still owned by Sistina > and from the look of things today, gfs is still full of performance and > reliabiliry issues. > > I understand that clustered fs is a _hard_ problem ... but isn't solving it > just waste of time? > > Because recently I found www.gluster.org - a neat, simple, scalable, > performant and reliable parallel filesystem, which does the almost same job > as gfs, just better. Are there any scenarios where gfs would be more > suitable than gluster? > > Opinions? As I'm working on glusterfs and use it extensively on many places. I must say, even thou it is very scalable it lacks the good performance on one big shared storage. I find that GFS/GFS2/OCFS2 are better suited for shared storage then any other parallel fs. Regards Marian Marinov -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
