- GlusterFS will be better if you want to do directory operations, and want a "real" filesystem (i.e. where you can grep stuff, edit files, have consistency gaurantees etc... and swift will be better for pure scale (less need to worry about metadata == easier to scale on commodity hardware. - Certainly both glusterFS and swift would scale to petabytes (object stores are built for that sort of thing, as is gluster). On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Randy Breunling <rbreunling at gmail.com>wrote: > I'm relatively new to the gluster community and wanted to know if there's > anyone out there that can talk to me, or point me to comparative > information on the following: > - glusterFS > - SWIFT > - CEPH > > I am interested in a solution that is object-based and will scale into > single-digit petabytes. > I'd like to know of experiences with these solutions that have to do with > large-scale deployments. > > If this is not the/a correct forum to discuss this...please let me know. > > Thanks... > > --Randy Breunling > > rbreunling at gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > -- Jay Vyas http://jayunit100.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20131126/d03e9519/attachment.html>
