Re: [Moosefs-users] git outdated

[Ricardo J. B. <ric...@da...>]

El Jue 03 Junio 2010, Laurent Wandrebeck escribió:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:02:29 +0200
[ ... snip ... ]
> - Do you know of any « big user » relying on mfs ? I've been able to find
> several for glusterfs for example, nothing for moosefs. Such entries would
> be nice on the website, and reassuring for potential users.

Well, I was pretty sure I saw a "Who's using" section on the website but I 
can't find it. Indeed it would be nice to have one.

> - How does moosefs compare to glusterfs? What are their respective pros and
> cons ? I haven't been able to find a comprehensive list.

I have tested both (and also Lustre) so here are my two cents:

> moose is quite easy to deploy (easier than glusterfs, I think, but not yet
> tested).

Yes, I think Moose is the easiest of the three.

> master failover is a bit tricky, which is really annoying for HA.

That's probably a point for Gluster as it doesn't have a metadata server, but 
actually there is a master (sort of) which is the one the clients connect to.

If it goes away, there's a delay till another node becomes master, at least in 
theory as I didn't test that part.

> Goal is just beautiful.

Yes, and IMHO this is a big advantage of Moose. Lustre doesn't even have 
replication and with Gluster the copies of a file are determined by how many 
storage nodes you configure as replicas.

> Other than that, stability/performance wise, I have no idea. 

My tests showed Moose had the best performance of the three.

My Moose cluster (1 master + 1 metalogger + 3 chunkservers = 5.3 TB, with 84 
clients doing nightly backups) has been running for only 3 months, but 
without any problems so far.

Never had any stability issues with Gluster or Lustre either, but I only did 
some tests, never put them in production.

> - At last, just to be sure I understood correctly, files are automatically
> striped through available chunkservers, so for all files with goal at 1, if
> a single chunkserver falls, files are unavailable, unless they are smaller
> than 64MB and not on the out of order chunkserver, correct ?

I believe you're correct, and that's why you should always have at least a 
goal of 2. I mean, if you consider your data important ;)

Best regards,
-- 
Ricardo J. Barberis
Senior SysAdmin - I+D
Dattatec.com :: Soluciones de Web Hosting
Su Hosting hecho Simple..!

------------------------------------------

Nota de confidencialidad: Este mensaje y los archivos adjuntos al mismo
son confidenciales, de uso exclusivo para el destinatario del mismo. La
divulgación y/o uso del mismo sin autorización por parte de Dattatec.com
queda prohibida. Dattatec.com no se hace responsable del mensaje por la
falsificación y/o alteración del mismo.
De no ser Ud. el destinatario del mismo y lo ha recibido por error, por
favor notifique al remitente y elimínelo de su sistema.

Confidentiality Note: This message and any attachments (the message) are
confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use
or dissemination is prohibited by Dattatec.com. Dattatec.com shall not be
liable for the message if altered or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it
immediately and inform the sender.

Nota de Confidencialidade: Esta mensagem e seus eventuais anexos podem
conter dados confidenciais ou privilegiados. Se você os recebeu por engano
ou não é um dos destinatários aos quais ela foi endereçada, por favor
destrua-a e a todos os seus eventuais anexos ou copias realizadas,
imediatamente.
É proibida a retenção, distribuição, divulgação ou utilização de quaisquer
informações aqui contidas. Por favor, informe-nos sobre o recebimento
indevido desta mensagem, retornando-a para o autor.