3 ms·
I 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 int
by mattbillenstein 11y ago
I 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.