From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 7 18:22:48 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747ED106577A for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:22:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-scalar.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-scalar.mail.uoguelph.ca [66.199.40.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51098FC15 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:22:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (new.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.93.37]) by egw-in-2.smz.uoguelph.scalar.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q52N6lmQ025272; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:06:48 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC90B404D; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:06:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:06:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: David Magda Message-ID: <1431674734.1241120.1338678407805.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <4D744565-4073-485E-B769-82BE1F7E2C0A@ee.ryerson.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.203] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Chris Nehren Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:22:48 -0000 David Magda wrote: > On Jun 1, 2012, at 21:03, Chris Nehren wrote: > > > You say your'e using ZVOLs but then recommend gluster for large > > filesystems. I would like to take a moment to point out that one of > > the > > design goals of ZFS was to scale beyond the capabilities of current > > hardware. > > > > What does gluster do that ZFS does not? I'm not trying to troll > > here, > > but am genuinely curious about ZFS's shortfalls in one of the > > problem > > domains it seeks to address. > > ZFS is for storing file systems on locally connected block devices. > Gluster is a network file system where data can be distributed over > many nodes. > > So ZFS can ensure that bits-on-disk stay safe through checksums and > mirroring / RAIDZ, while Gluster allows entire file servers to go > offline and the files are still accessible because you have a kind of > network-level RAID going on. This also helps in performance since > instead of clients pounding on one file server (as usually happens > with NFS), every write is sent to many data nodes so you're striping > across many network elements. Think of it as NFS on steroids. > > A competitive open source equivalent would be Lustre, while Isilon and > Panasas would probably be commercial alternatives (though they do NFS > / CIFS on the 'front-end' and the distributed "magic" occurs on a > 'back-end' network between the appliances). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlusterFS > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustre_(file_system) > Just fyi, someone is currently working on an NFSv4.1 pNFS layout type for Lustre. As such, once that layout is implemented, the NFSv4.1 client I am working on should be able to use a Lustre server cluster. So, it could be a while (next summer, maybe?), but that should be FreeBSD eventually. (I have no idea how easy porting of the Lustre server to FreeBSD would be?) Having said the above, I am not familiar with either Gluster or Lustre, so take the above as based on what little I currently know, rick > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"