[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] gfs2 v. zfs?



Sometime ago, the following was advertised:

"ZFS is not a native cluster, distributed, or parallel file system and
cannot provide concurrent access from multiple hosts as ZFS is a local
file system. Sun's Lustre distributed filesystem will adapt ZFS as
back-end storage for both data and metadata in version 3.0, which is
scheduled to be released in 2010."

You can google "Lustre" to see whether their plan (built Lustre on top
of ZFS) is panned out.

-- Wendy

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Gordan Bobic <gordan bobich net> wrote:
> On 01/24/2011 07:51 PM, yvette hirth wrote:
>>
>> Gordan Bobic wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/24/2011 07:16 PM, yvette hirth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> hi all,
>>>>
>>>> does anyone have any performance comparisons of gfs2 v. zfs?
>>>>
>>>> our five-node cluster is working fine, the clustering software is great,
>>>> but when accessing gfs2-based files, enumeration can be very slow...
>>>
>>> The comparison is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. GFS is a
>>> cluster file system, ZFS is a single-machine file system.
>>>
>>> Gordan
>>>
>>> --
>>> Linux-cluster mailing list
>>> Linux-cluster redhat com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>>>
>> my apologies. i heard zfs was cluster-aware; thanks for the info.
>>
>> does anyone have any performance comparisons of gfs2 v. any other
>> cluster-aware filesystems?
>
> You may want to google about GFS / GFS2 / OCFS2. That's pretty much all that
> is freely available as far as cluster file systems that live directly on top
> of block devices go.
>
> The original OCFS (Oracle) and VMFS (VMware) work in a similar way but they
> are designed for few large files rather than many small files so they aren't
> suitable for generic use.
>
> Symantec Veritas Cluster also comes with a similar cluster aware file
> system, but it's heavily licenced and last time I checked it didn't provide
> any compelling reasons to use it instead of GFS, GFS2 or OCFS2.
>
> There are a few other things available that may be more suitable for what
> you want to do, but it's impossible to say without knowing more about your
> use-case. Depending on ecactly what you require you may find that SeznamFS,
> GlusterFS, Lustre or even HDFS (Hadoop) are more suitable for what you want
> to do.
>
> Gordan
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]