[Gluster-users] glusterfs alternative ? :P

[Stas Oskin]

Hi.

It's got similar speeds compared to gluster for a few nodes but depends on
> fiberchannel or some other shared block storage system for redundancy. We
> immediately discarded it in favor of gluster for this reason. It was also
> significantly more difficult to get running as it was a kernel patch.
>

Are you sure about that?


>From Lustre wiki (http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php?title=Lustre_FAQ)

> Are fibrechannel switches necessary? How does HA shared storage work?
>
> Typically, fibrechannel switches are not necessary. Multi-port shared
> storage for failover is normally configured to be shared between two server
> nodes on a FC-AL. Shared SCSI and future shared SATA devices will also work.
>
>
> Backend storage is expected to be cache-coherent between multiple channels
> reaching the devices. Servers in an OSS failover pair are normally both
> active in the file system, and can be configured to take over partitions for
> each other in the case of a failure. MDS failover pairs can also both be
> active, but only if they serve multiple separate file systems.
>

As far a I understand, Lustre is designed with the approach most cluster
file systems (except GlusterFS of course :) ), meaning you have master
servers that responsible for storage and retrieval of the data, and storage
nodes, which do actualy storage.

Regards.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20090112/c3929bbd/attachment.html>