From: Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> > We use glusterfs in the CentOS build infrastructure ... and for the most > part it works fairly well. > It is sometimes very slow on file systems with lots of small files ... > especially for operations like find or chmod/chown on a large volume > with lots of small files. > BUT, that said, it is very convenient to use commodity hardware and have > redundant, large, failover volumes on the local network. > We started with version 3.2.5 and now use 3.3.0-3, which is faster than > 3.2.5 ... so it should get better in the future. > I can recommend glusterfs as I have not found anything that does what it > does and does it better, but it is challenging and may not be good for > all situations, so test it before you use it. I am not too worried about bad performances. I am afraid to get paged one night because the 50+ TB of the storage cluster are gone followinf a bug/crash... It would take days/weeks to set it back up from the backups. If we were rich, I guess we would have two (or more) "geo-replicated" glusters and be able to withstand one failing... I would like the same trust level that I have in RAID. JD