in object stores you sacrifice the consistency gauranteed by filesystems for **higher** availability. probably by "scale" you mean higher availability, so... the answer is probably object storage.
That said, gluster is an interesting file system in that it is "object-like" --- it is really fast for lookups.... and so if you aren't really sure you need objects, you might be able to do just fine with gluster out of the box.
One really cool idea that is permeating the gluster community nowadays is this "UFO" concept, -- you can easily start with regular gluster, and then layer an object store on top at a later date if you want to sacrifice posix operations for (even) higher availability.
That said, gluster is an interesting file system in that it is "object-like" --- it is really fast for lookups.... and so if you aren't really sure you need objects, you might be able to do just fine with gluster out of the box.
One really cool idea that is permeating the gluster community nowadays is this "UFO" concept, -- you can easily start with regular gluster, and then layer an object store on top at a later date if you want to sacrifice posix operations for (even) higher availability.
"Unified File and Object Storage - Unified file and object storage allows admins to utilize the same data store for both POSIX-style mounts as well as S3 or Swift-compatible APIs." (from http://gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/3.3beta)
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Randy Breunling <rbreunling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From any experience...which has shown to scale better...a file system or an object store?--Randy
San Jose CA
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
--
Jay Vyas
http://jayunit100.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
