Are there recommendations on cluster filesystems?
I have several hosts with fibre channel. They should use a common
filesystem to have a half-automatic fail-over.
--
Ullrich Horlacher Informationssysteme und Serverbetrieb
Rechenzentrum IZUS/TIK E-Mail:
On 10/08/2012 09:47 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
Are there recommendations on cluster filesystems?
I have several hosts with fibre channel. They should use a common
filesystem to have a half-automatic fail-over.
I think you should be able to use any of the cluster FS (eg. gluster,
moosefs,
On Mon 2012-10-08 (10:32), Papp Tamas wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:47 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
Are there recommendations on cluster filesystems?
I have several hosts with fibre channel. They should use a common
filesystem to have a half-automatic fail-over.
I think you should be able to
On 10/08/2012 05:00 PM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
should - I prefer recommendations ny experience :-)
I have tried by myself gluster and it is HORRIBLE slow.
With GFS I have heard of several fatal crashes with data corruption.
Also GFS locking mechanism is not the best if I know well.
If you are
On Mon 2012-10-08 (17:16), Papp Tamas wrote:
On 10/08/2012 05:00 PM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
should - I prefer recommendations ny experience :-)
I have tried by myself gluster and it is HORRIBLE slow.
If you are interested, try Moosefs. I have quite good experiences with
it, however
On 10/08/2012 05:58 PM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
Moosefs is FUSE based (for clients) and therefore will be very slow. I
suspect NFS is faster, even on (only) GbE.
Glusterfs is also fuse based.
If you don't want that, try Lustre.
NFS is faster, but it's not clusterfs.
Ubuntu 12.04 does not
Ulli Horlacher frams...@rus.uni-stuttgart.de wrote:
should - I prefer recommendations ny experience :-)
I have tried by myself gluster and it is HORRIBLE slow.
If you are interested, try Moosefs. I have quite good experiences with
it, however not under containers.
Moosefs is
