3 ms·

We used BeeGFS since it was called FhGFS on a cluster of 32 nodes for a total capacity ranging from 256tb-1Pb. BeeGFS is very easy to configure and maintain, ou

We used BeeGFS since it was called FhGFS on a cluster of 32 nodes for a total capacity ranging from 256tb-1Pb. BeeGFS is very easy to configure and maintain, outperforming Lustre for every task we threw it at. In fact, we never transitioned lustre into production. Lustre was often slower than plain NFS for the cases where all storage could be mounted by a single node(!). Unfortunately, it's prior licensing scheme prevented larger initial adoption. A good chunk of large scale setups I've seen have adopted Ceph, but I cannot comment on performance.

pinewurst 9y ago
BeeGFS is great. I originally evaluated it when it was FhGFS and am still involved with a large production BeeGFS cluster deployment. Any knucklehead can install it and it works transparently with excellent performance. It's currently not enterprise-grade fault tolerant - that's the worst thing I can say about it.
- hpcjoe 9y ago
  > It's currently not enterprise-grade fault tolerant - that's the worst thing I can say about it. Its getting there quickly. BeeGFS v6 has metadata mirroring via buddy groups, and data mirroring the same way. A few things are still not there, but it is rapidly getting closer. Being open source helps as well. Definitely recommend it, and have deployed it and supported it many places in my previous life: http://scalableinformatics.com http://scalableinformatics.com .