On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:01:33PM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote: > HP's version of Lustre (SFS) is also capacity-licensed > (and I agree, it's a customer-hostile policy.) > > >I really don't seem many people discussing the good and bad things > >about the current crop of distributed/shared filesystems. Do > >they sign a contract saying they can disclose any information about > >their operation? > > well, if you spend significant money on a commercial product, > and are using/depending on it, it's not attractive to embarass > the vendor in public. > > >IBM GPFS > >Ibrix > >Isilon > >Terrascale > >Netapp > >(Did I forget some). > > Lustre/SFS and Redhat GFS, certainly.
http://www.clustermonkey.net//content/view/31/28/ Might help put things in perspective a bit and adds a few more to the list. Published about a year ago -- still fresh in the context of filesystems. Thanks, Karen -- Karen Shaeffer Neuralscape, Palo Alto, Ca. 94306 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neuralscape.com _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
