Hi. AFAIK Lustre is quite slower then GlusterFS being based on Java - can someone comment about this? Regards. 2009/1/8 Jerker Nyberg <jerker at update.uu.se> > > Hi, > > The two interesting open source parallel distributed fault-tolerant file > systems I have found and tried are GlusterFS and Ceph. Perhaps Lustre will > be interesting for me in the future if they fix fault-tolerance without > special shared block storage on the servers. (Or have they?) Mirroring the > data two or more servers is good enough for me, although I would love some > RAID-6/RAID-Z -like redundancy. > > Ceph is found here <http://ceph.newdream.net/>. I did some benchmarking > for Ceph a few months ago <http://www.update.uu.se/~jerker/ceph/<http://www.update.uu.se/%7Ejerker/ceph/>>. > On Ceph > I got around 65 MByte/s write bandwidth on one node (using "dd") and > around 120 MByte/s aggregate for the whole cluster (7 nodes). > > It was around a year ago the last time I configured and ran GlusterFS on > the machines, but I do plan to do some better benchmarking for both file > systems in the not so distant future. > > --jerker > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, a_pirania at poczta.onet.pl wrote: > > > I know that this is not the appropriate place :). You know someone can > > alternative to gluserfs ?:) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://zresearch.com/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20090111/29de7d34/attachment.html
