On 01/19/2013 01:43 PM, F. Ozbek wrote: > try moosefs. http://www.moosefs.org/ > > we tried both gluster and ceph, they both failed in many ways. > moosefs passed the same tests with flying colors. > > moose is your friend. Don't you think it's rather bad form to come on a mailing list for one project and recommend a competitor based on FUD? I could go on the MooseFS mailing list to tell all comers how it risks your data by ignoring O_SYNC, how it's over-the-fence-ware instead of true open source, how it doesn't have the feature set or extensibility that GlusterFS does - all actual *facts* BTW - but I'd expect to get thrown off the list for that and rightly so. If you want to be constructive, you could start by identifying the version you used and describing the problems you saw. That would be fine. "We had unspecified problems, use $otherproject instead" is not fine. It reflects poorly on both you and MooseFS that you would resort to such tactics.
