On 10/26/2016 02:54 PM, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:
Maybe a controversial question (and hopefully not trolling), but any
particularly reason you choose gluster over ceph for these larger
setups Joe?
For myself, gluster is much easier to manage and provides better
performance on my small non-enterprise setup, plus it plays nice with
zfs.
But I thought ceph had the edge on large, many node, many disk setups.
It would seem it handles adding/removing disks better that the
juggling you have to do with gluster to keep replication triads even.
To complex/fragile maybe?
Genuinely curious.
I need to put together a whole presentation on this, but I'm not yet
sure how much I can say yet.
For now I can say that gluster performs better and has a much better
worst-case resolution. If everything else goes to hell, I have disks
with files on them that I can recover on a laptop if I have to.
Of course when you ask the Inktank consultants (now Red Hat) about "What
happens when it fails?" the answer is "It doesn't fail." Well guess what...
To be fair, though, I can't blame ceph. We had a cascading hardware
failure with those storage trays. Even still, if it had been gluster - I
would have had files on disks.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
