Distributed Filesystems: Fraunhofer vs. Gluster (2014)
moo.nac.uci.edu
moo.nac.uci.edu
Given that it's a year-old article, that 2 year-old impression is probably very outdated. I would have loved to see Ceph benchmarked there as well.
http://www.beegfs.com/content/
What i don't like are metadata servers. I mean mostly I would start out small, with every project. But the "real" cluster file systems don't follow this tradition. The bare minimum of a solid production environment is probably more than 5 nodes, which is really huge for using it as a layer for content distribution in the small scale.
I mean its cheaper to rent s3 / the new aws nfs solution or any other s3 like storage solution, than running a server with a distributed file system by yourself and I'm just considering the running costs, no maintance etc...
Its really hard to do this on premise on a really small scale and just for availability. Most people will mostly just buy this stuff from san/nas vendors if they could afford it, if they have a system that needs to have this built in your pretty much fucked with ugly hacks / solutions.
Sure if you never pay for bandwidth.
GlusterFS has implemented many smallfile performance enhancements and with the latest release I am seeing a 20-50% improvement on smallfile performance. There are more improvements in the pipeline:
http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Fea...
I would be curious to see these tests run on a properly tuned(readahead on bricks is important for spinning disks and read workloads, I didn't see any mention of brick tuning in the article) and on the latest version of glusterfs with the smallfile performance enhancements.