4 ms·
Yet another knock-off of Lustre. Lustre is not perfect, and I'm not suggesting it has a place in the mainline kernel, but it sounds like neither does BTRFS. Wh
by dosman33 5y ago
Yet another knock-off of Lustre. Lustre is not perfect, and I'm not suggesting it has a place in the mainline kernel, but it sounds like neither does BTRFS.
When you get to large scale (multi-petabyte) filesystems there are not many options, it's GPFS, Lustre, or roll your own. Lustre development has been indirectly sponsored by the DoE for a long time now. And if Lustre didn't exist IBM would charge even more for GPFS. But at least Lustre is free. But it's not a walk in the park to use.
- guenthert 5y agoUh, BTRFS and Lustre can't easily be compared. The former is exclusively a single-host fs, the latter is a cluster-only fs. The former focuses (more or less successfully) on data resilience and availability, the latter on performance. There are quite a few large scale distributed file systems. XtreemFS, Hadoop and Ceph come to mind. There are others, e.g. OrangeFS (successor of PVFS), PanFS, etc. .