On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hijack away, as long as I get the vote :) > > So the big difference with MooseFS is that it will run on commodity > hardware > and can be set up by a monkey. > So you don't need hardware HPC equipment, just a bunch of computers with > hard drives. This means it can scale and works well for both small and very > large deployments. > I set it up to test it on just a couple of virtual machines and it ran like > a dream, and it also runs like a dream on my company's 165 TB setup > supporting over 12 million files. > > There are a lot of other differences, but all in all, MooseFS is much MUCH > more KISS than Lustre, effectively delivers the same product, is very fast > for a distributed file system and is a snap to set up! > Grab a couple of machines and try it out! > Oh God it's FUSE. One more question then, how does it compare with GlusterFS? Which is also easy to set up, runs on FUSE, and can use commodity hardware. Thanks, --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/