> So ZFS can ensure that bits-on-disk stay safe through checksums and mirroring > / RAIDZ, while Gluster allows entire file servers to go offline and the files > are still accessible because you have a kind of network-level RAID going on. > This also helps in performance since instead of clients pounding on one file > server (as usually happens with NFS), every write is sent to many data nodes > so you're striping across many network elements. Think of it as NFS on > steroids.
I love distributed filessystems. While Gluster is a pain, this is something that the Linux community is at least paying attention to as a real issue and working to solve it. I don't know that new work in distributed filesystems, like Ceph (http://ceph.com/), is inherently tied to Linux, but more that devs are choosing Linux as a platform on which to build awesome projects. I would love to see ZFS backed distributed network filesystems, but even ZFS came from outside FreeBSD, so the commercial vendors you mentioned may be the only way forward in this regard for FreeBSD. -- Zach _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
