In my limited knowedge, that's the primary advantage of GPFS, in that it isn't
just a DFS, and fits into a much larger ecosystem of other features like HSM
and so on, which is something the other DFS alternatives don't tend to do quite
so neatly. Normally I'm wary of proprietary filesystems, having been bitten by
the demise of AdvFS following the HP/Compaq merger, but GPFS has been central
to IBM's strategy for a long time, so I don't think that risk is terribly great
in this case.
Sanger has been a Lustre site for 10+ years, but then we have enough DFS
storage to justify headcount to look after it. I've played with BeeGFS in the
past, and it's certainly very easy to install and configure, but I haven't ever
tried it at a large enough scale on real tin to evaluate its performance
properly
Regards,
Tim
--
Head of Scientific Computing
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
On 15/02/2017, 06:53, "Beowulf on behalf of Christopher Samuel"
<beowulf-boun...@beowulf.org on behalf of sam...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
I guess I'm getting my head around how other sites GPFS performs given I
have a current sample size of 1 and that was spec'd out by IBM as part
of a large overarching contract. :-)
--
The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research
Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a
company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered
office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
