[aur-general] TU Application -Thomas Hatch

[Thomas S Hatch]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatch45 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hijack away, as long as I get the vote :)
> >
> > So the big difference with MooseFS is that it will run on commodity
> > hardware
> > and can be set up by a monkey.
> > So you don't need hardware HPC equipment, just a bunch of computers with
> > hard drives. This means it can scale and works well for both small and
> very
> > large deployments.
> > I set it up to test it on just a couple of virtual machines and it ran
> like
> > a dream, and it also runs like a dream on my company's 165 TB setup
> > supporting over 12 million files.
> >
> > There are a lot of other differences, but all in all, MooseFS is much
> MUCH
> > more KISS than Lustre, effectively delivers the same product, is very
> fast
> > for a distributed file system and is a snap to set up!
> > Grab a couple of machines and try it out!
> >
>
> Oh God it's FUSE. One more question then, how does it compare with
> GlusterFS? Which is also easy to set up, runs on FUSE, and can use
> commodity
> hardware. Thanks, --Kaiting.
>
> --
> Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
>

The difference is that Gluster is a nightmare!

The problem with gluster is that the replication is tiered, and that there
is no metadata. The client is then the master, this means that if you
connect to gluster with a mis-configured client you can have large scale
data corruption.

Next since the replication of data is tiered you don't have true
replication, so only the gluster server you connect to to save the data has
the correct data, if that server goes down the replications are old and you
have data corruption.

The gluster devs actually had to recall gluster 3.1 because the data
corruption was rampant.

The difference between gluster and MooseFS is that MooseFS works!

MooseFS also has a cool web frontend :)

We were using gluster and the business cost became catastrophic, picking up
the peices was a nightmare.

MooseFS saves data to replication nodes in paralell! MooseFS maintains a
master metalogger so client connections are agnostic.
MooseFS maintains metadata replication so you can restore is something
happens to the master.

I take it you don't like FUSE? EVERYBODY is doing it ;)

I am looking forward to Ceph, which does not require fuse, but I don't think
it is going to be production ready for at least a year, and MooseFS easily
compete with Ceph IMHO.

If there are GlusterFS devs in the room, please disregard the previous rant
:)

-Tom