Karen Shaeffer wrote:
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
The website doesn't have any real-world experience. I would
like to know things like 'Filesystem X has much better
meta-data performance than Filesystem Y', or 'Don't try using
netcdf files on Filesystem Z, because the performance will
be awful'.
Discussions about real-world use will help users get through
the marketing fluff to find out what is really going on. Not
everyone has a chance to test every single filesystem before
choosing one.
Craig
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
