3 ms·
I'd be also interested in a bit of info why Ceph and GlusterFS disappointed you. I tried GlusterFS a few years ago and it took a good while to figure out the ri
by eis 11y ago
I'd be also interested in a bit of info why Ceph and GlusterFS disappointed you. I tried GlusterFS a few years ago and it took a good while to figure out the right setup but in the end had disappointing small file performance.
Ceph was very interesting but wasn't product ready when I looked at it and since then it somehow never got to a stage where people would rave about it so that alone makes me think it's maybe too complicated. A bit like BTRFS which also for years and years is being developed and sounds really promising but never seems to be finally ready without gotchas.
- mattbillenstein 11y agoI also tried ceph and gluster before settling on moosefs a couple years ago -- gluster was slow for filesystem operations on a lot of files and it would get into a state where some files weren't replicated properly with seemingly no problems with the network for physical servers. Ceph at that time was unstable -- once I had a couple boxes kernel panic in testing, I jumped off that boat immediately. Moosefs is pragmatic -- written in pretty tight C, performant, and the web UI for seeing the state of the cluster and how files are replicating is very nice. We have a small cluster with maybe a dozen nodes running for almost 2 years now with no hiccups...
- scurvy 11y agoKernel panic? Were you using ceph or cephfs? Ceph block storage shouldn't have any loaded kernel modules.
- mattbillenstein 11y agoWe were trying out the filesystem -- it was clearly alpha/beta quality at that time, so it was no surprise it didn't work, and perhaps it's improved in the last two years.
- scurvy 11y agocephfs is clearly marked as not for production. It still has more than its fair share of bugs and has single points of failure. From the very top of the docs page on ceph FS: "Important CephFS currently lacks a robust ‘fsck’ check and repair function. Please use caution when storing important data as the disaster recovery tools are still under development. For more information about using CephFS today, see CephFS for early adopters" RedHat is focusing on making the block and object storage bulletproof. They're content to let the opensource side twiddle away on ceph FS.
- scurvy 11y agoKernel panic? Were you using ceph or cephfs? Ceph block storage shouldn't have any loaded kernel modules.
- scurvy 11y agoCeph block storage or CephFS?