I noticed two other people already responded to this with the RH party line of "Use Gluster", while I have nothing bad (or good) to say about Gluster since I've never used it, it's not the only option out there, and you should look at others, too.
I specialize in HPC, and Lustre is definitely the most popular of the parallel filesystems used in that space. The next most popular is probably IBM's GPFS. Another popular option is PVFS and it's descendant OrangeFS. There are plenty of university's and national labs are using Lustre, GPFS, or OrangeFS, Lustre and PVFS/OrangeFS are open source. Since Sun was leading the development of Lustre, WhamCloud, Inc. took stewardship of the Lustre project after the Oracle buyout of Sun. GPFS is a commercial product, and an expensive one at that, but I know plenty of people who've decided it's worth the cost (or really, really want someone else to blame when things go south. OrangeFS/PVFS are open source projects from Clemson University. There plenty of academic papers and whitepapers comparing the performance and architecture of parallel filesystems. I would google the names of each of the parallel filesystems, and spend some time learning about all of them and parallel filesystems in general before making a decision. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Prentice On 03/05/2012 11:34 AM, Bohmer, Andre ten wrote: > Hello, > > Any advise or experience from production systems regarding distributed > parallel fault-tolerant file systems like Lustre ? > We would like to offer high performance, redundant storage via nfs and cifs > from Redhat servers. > > At this we've HP's XP9000 Ibrix in use, but performance is not all that > great. > > Cheers, > Andre _______________________________________________ rhelv6-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
