On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 8:21 AM, E.S. Rosenberg <esr+lus...@mail.hebrew.edu> wrote:
> > 4. One of my colleagues likes Isilon very much, I have not been able to > find any literature on if/how Lustre compares any pointers/knowledge on the > subject is very welcome. > > I haven't looked at Isilon in a while, but my recollection was that 1. It's phenomenally expensive, especially at smaller scales. This is the most obvious detractor vs. Lustre, especially at low node counts. 2. It's completely proprietary and architecturally complex, so management and support model is difficult to shape into existing operations. There are also cost implications here. 3. It uses NFS for transport, so it doesn't offer POSIX consistency between clients. This makes shared-file parallel I/O extremely hazardous. In my experience, Isilon is popular in markets flush with money but scarce in institutional storage expertise. In such cases, #1 and #2 are non-issues, and #3 often doesn't apply because such industries' workloads are throughput-oriented and rarely use MPI. Glenn
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
