On 07/24/2018 10:31 AM, John Hearns via Beowulf wrote:
Forgive me for saying this, but the philosophy for software defined
storage such as CEPH and Gluster is that forklift style upgrades
should not be necessary.
When a storage server is to be retired the data is copied onto the new
server then the old one taken out of service. Well, copied is not the
correct word, as there are erasure-coded copies of the data.
Rebalanced is probaby a better word.
This ^^
I'd seen/helped build/benchmarked some very nice/fast CephFS based
storage systems in $dayjob-1. While it is a neat system, if you are
focused on availability, scalability, and performance, its pretty hard
to beat BeeGFS. We'd ($dayjob-1) deployed several very large/fast file
systems with it on our spinning rust, SSD, and NVMe units.
--
Joe Landman
e: joe.land...@gmail.com
t: @hpcjoe
w: https://scalability.org
g: https://github.com/joelandman
l: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joelandman
_______________________________________________
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
