Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:11:40 +0200 From: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> To: Berend de Boer <berend@pobox.com> Cc: FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What happened with the GlusterFS port? Message-ID: <DFA6851C-86F2-4D8C-8D24-E4A9AD0CAE50@ultra-secure.de> In-Reply-To: <87zjjhofu3.wl%berend@pobox.com> References: <28234312-7982-49F5-83FD-865649AA9CCB@ultra-secure.de> <1397850220.58880.16.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <CAKYr3zybY3hdXLpL-fCvqs%2B=syZ7uBE-FiXj%2BXcRGG1YoUZhOQ@mail.gmail.com> <7FAD7618-593D-4797-9EE9-BA36A87CE79B@ultra-secure.de> <87zjjhofu3.wl%berend@pobox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 19.04.2014 um 10:59 schrieb Berend de Boer <berend@pobox.com>: >>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> writes: > > Rainer> GlusterFS would eliminate this (in situations where the > Rainer> customer needs a number of servers anyway). > > If it works. People who try gluster, usually are pretty disappointed. > > It's not a swap for your traditional nfs server. > Well, I was suspecting something like this. We’ve yet to make it production with the first GlusterFS customer - and then the ramp-up until it’s running their whole stuff will be very long. But I think their dataset is pretty small anyway. We don’t deal with a lot of data, usually. From what I have read, GlusterFS does not work very well with lots of small files (as they would occur in a website-hosting environment, where GlusterFS would look like a logical choice). Is that still the case?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DFA6851C-86F2-4D8C-8D24-E4A9AD0CAE50>