On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Joshua Baker-LePain <jl...@duke.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 at 10:04pm, Rudi Ahlers wrote > >> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin >> <centos.ad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> One of the problem with Lustre's style of distributed storage which >>> Gluster points out is that the bottleneck is the meta server which >>> tells clients where to find the actual data. Gluster supposedly scales >>> with every client machine added because it doesn't use a meta server, >>> file locations are determined using some kind of computed hash. >>> >> >> But who uses gluster in a production environment then? I have seen >> less posts (both on forums and mailing lists) about Glusteter, than >> lustre. > > I just finished testing a Gluster setup using some of my compute nodes. > Based on those results, I'll be ordering 8 storage bricks (25 drives each) > to start my storage cluster. I'll be using Gluster to a) replicate > frequently used data (e.g. biologic databases) across the whole storage > cluster and b) provide a global scratch space. The clients will be the > 570 (and growing) nodes of my HPC cluster, and Gluster will be helping to > take some of the load off my overloaded NetApp. > > They also have a page on their website listing self-reported users > <http://www.gluster.org/gluster-users/>. > > -- > Joshua Baker-LePain > QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin > UCSF > _______________________________________________
Thanx for the feedback. This is what I hoped to get from someone running lustre :) But I guess I'll look at gluster instead. -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
