At 03:30 AM 1/7/2009, a_pirania at poczta.onet.pl wrote: > >"Keith Freedman" <freedman at FreeFormIT.com> napisa?(a): > > it depends what you're trying to accomplish with your filesystem. > > > > there are many alternatives each of which are suitable for specific needs. > > if you want a general purpose solution that is feature rich and > > solves a wide variety of problems, then gluster is really the best > > choice but depending on your specific nees, there may be better > > alternatives out there. > > > > >I need a redundant system files in the event of >failure of the first. glusterfs is a lot of errors well, gluster 2.0 isn't really out yet, it's in beta, so it's likely to be a little error prone. but it's the only one I've found which has good live failover at all. you could explore coda which is agony to install, or ocfs2 which is fine if you have shared storage. there's cloudstore (I think that's what they call it now), but if I remember correctly, it's not a fuse based filesystem, so and is only accessible via an API, which makes it pretty useless unless you're developing a specific application. google "clustered storage with failover" and you'll get a list to explore.
