[Discuss] Gluster startup, small-files performance

[Richard Pieri]

F. O. Ozbek wrote:
> I think the discussion is losing its focus. If you are a bank
> moving billions of dollars around, go make EMC even richer.
> If you need a reliable HPC storage cluster that you can actually afford,
> use moosefs!

That's been my point: MooseFS isn't reliable. Parallel clusters will
have overlapping sync cycles which reduces, but does not eliminate, the
windows during which no data or partial data has been flushed to disk.
More parallel clusters means smaller windows but you still can't be 100%
certain 100% of the time.

This is getting to be a lot like that "MongoDB is Web Scale" video.
"GluserFS is slow because it writes to disk." :)

But seriously, in a purely compute environment where data on the shared
file system are replicated from other sources, MooseFS may be a good
choice. But as a primary data store? No chance.

-- 
Rich P.