[CentOS] Is glusterfs ready?

Wed Aug 29 12:49:26 UTC 2012
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 08/29/2012 05:16 AM, John Doe wrote:
> 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.

I have routinely used DRBD for things like this ... 2 servers, one a
complete failover of the other one.  Of course, that requires a 50+ TB
file system on each machine.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20120829/1fe5a058/attachment-0004.sig>