On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2014, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> Do you really need filesystem semantics or would ceph's object store work?
>
> Yes, I really need file system semantics; I am storing home directories.
In that case, wouldn't it be simpler to ha
We were using glusterfs for shared home directories and it was really slow.
We're using an NFS shared and it's working much faster.
Mark
> On May 18, 2014, at 21:35, "Ted Miller" wrote:
>
>> On 05/18/2014 11:47 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>> MooseFS and GlusterFS have both been evaluated, and we
On Sun, 18 May 2014, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Do you really need filesystem semantics or would ceph's object store work?
Yes, I really need file system semantics; I am storing home directories.
Steve
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.
On Sun, 18 May 2014, Ted Miller wrote:
> How recently have you looked at Gluster? It has seen some significant
> progress, though small files are still its weakest area. I believe that
> some use-cases have found that NFS access is faster for small files.
I last looked at Gluster about two mont
> I have not looked at Lustre, as I have heard many negative things about it
> (including Oracle ownership). The only business using Lustre where I know
> the admins has had a lot of trouble with it. No redundancy.
I know some Lustre admins that indeed have the far away stare similar to
people tha
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2014, Andrew Holway wrote:
>
> MooseFS and GlusterFS have both been evaluated, and were too slow. In the
> case of GlusterFS, wy too slow.
>
Do you really need filesystem semantics or would ceph's object store work?
--
On 05/18/2014 11:47 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> MooseFS and GlusterFS have both been evaluated, and were too slow. In the
> case of GlusterFS, wy too slow.
How recently have you looked at Gluster? It has seen some significant
progress, though small files are still its weakest area. I believ
On Sun, 18 May 2014, Andrew Holway wrote:
> Have you looked at parallel filesystems such as Lustre and fhgfs?
I have not looked at Lustre, as I have heard many negative things about it
(including Oracle ownership). The only business using Lustre where I know
the admins has had a lot of trouble
Have you looked at parallel filesystems such as Lustre and fhgfs?
On 18 May 2014 01:14, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2014, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>
> > Why specifically do you care about that? Both with your solution and the
> > DRBD one the clients only see a NFS endpoint so wh
On Sun, 18 May 2014, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> Why specifically do you care about that? Both with your solution and the
> DRBD one the clients only see a NFS endpoint so what does it matter that
> this endpoint is placed on one of the storage systems?
The whole point of the exercise is to en
On 17.05.2014 19:00, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you might be reinventing the wheel.
>
> I think not; see below.
>
>> DRBD [0] does what it sounds like you're trying to accomplish [1].
>> Especially since you have two nodes A+B or C+D that ar
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you might be reinventing the wheel.
>
> I think not; see below.
> > DRBD [0] does what it sounds like you're trying to accomplish [1].
> > Especially since you have two nodes A+B
On Sat, 17 May 2014, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> How about glusterfs?
I have tried glusterfs; the large file performance is reasonable, but
the small file performance is too low to be useable.
Steve
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.ce
How about glusterfs?
17.5.2014 20.01 kirjoitti "Steve Thompson" :
> On Sat, 17 May 2014, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you might be reinventing the wheel.
>
> I think not; see below.
>
> > DRBD [0] does what it sounds like you're trying to accomplish [1].
> > Especially since you have two
On Sat, 17 May 2014, SilverTip257 wrote:
> Sounds like you might be reinventing the wheel.
I think not; see below.
> DRBD [0] does what it sounds like you're trying to accomplish [1].
> Especially since you have two nodes A+B or C+D that are RAIDed over iSCSI.
> It's rather painless to set up tw
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> This idea is intruiging...
>
> Suppose one has a set of file servers called A, B, C, D, and so forth, all
> running CentOS 6.5 64-bit, all being interconnected with 10GbE. These file
> servers can be divided into identical pairs, so A is t
This idea is intruiging...
Suppose one has a set of file servers called A, B, C, D, and so forth, all
running CentOS 6.5 64-bit, all being interconnected with 10GbE. These file
servers can be divided into identical pairs, so A is the same
configuration (diks, processors, etc) as B, C the same a
17 matches
Mail list logo
