Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BeeGFS, the Parallel Cluster File System

beegfs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: BeeGFS, the Parallel Cluster File System

#11

Post by eis »

pjc50 wrote: post #9
poelzi wrote: post #6

found this interesting: https://indico.cern.ch/event/346931/session/4/contribution/6... > Plain BeeGFS is as reliable as your hardware currently i would give MooseFS, orangefs or lizardfs a try. Had experience with ceph and glusterfs and both I can not recommend.

Could you elaborate on this please?

I'd be also interested in a bit of info why Ceph and GlusterFS disappointed you. I tried GlusterFS a few years ago and it took a good while to figure out the right setup but in the end had disappointing small file performance.

Ceph was very interesting but wasn't product ready when I looked at it and since then it somehow never got to a stage where people would rave about it so that alone makes me think it's maybe too complicated. A bit like BTRFS which also for years and years is being developed and sounds really promising but never seems to be finally ready without gotchas.

Re: BeeGFS, the Parallel Cluster File System

#12

Post by rbanffy »

leni536 wrote: post #5

http://www.beegfs.com/docs/BeeGFS_EULA.txt Umm, how is this compatible with GPL v2? It seems more restrictive (enterprise features, parts that would be better enforced by a trademark policy).

Speaking of trademarks, there is a band who would want to talk to these guys.

Re: BeeGFS, the Parallel Cluster File System

#15

Post by sharktour »

This doesn't fill the huge gap for Cloud NAS. GlusterFS is hugely complicated and a fragile install, SoftNAS has (anecdotally) poor performance on high-io... but it's closer. Amazon hasn't launched their EFS product to General Availability Yet.

So wtf do we do when we need a 5TB shared storage platform across some EC2 nodes?

Re: BeeGFS, the Parallel Cluster File System

#17

Post by mattbillenstein »

eis wrote: post #11
pjc50 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on this please?

I'd be also interested in a bit of info why Ceph and GlusterFS disappointed you. I tried GlusterFS a few years ago and it took a good while to figure out the right setup but in the end had disappointing small file performance. Ceph was very interesting but wasn't product ready when I looked at it and since then it somehow never got to a stage where people would rave about it so that alone makes me think it's maybe to…

I also tried ceph and gluster before settling on moosefs a couple years ago -- gluster was slow for filesystem operations on a lot of files and it would get into a state where some files weren't replicated properly with seemingly no problems with the network for physical servers.

Ceph at that time was unstable -- once I had a couple boxes kernel panic in testing, I jumped off that boat immediately.

Moosefs is pragmatic -- written in pretty tight C, performant, and the web UI for seeing the state of the cluster and how files are replicating is very nice. We have a small cluster with maybe a dozen nodes running for almost 2 years now with no hiccups...

Re: BeeGFS, the Parallel Cluster File System

#20

Post by Diederich »

merb wrote: post #19

Actually there isn't a easy file system which spans 3 computers and scales to thousand and is eay to install. There are only one's which are hard to install, or needing more than 3 computers, etc..

Honest question: how does GlusterFS not meet these goals? I know that it's easy to install, and can easily run on three computers. And I believe it can scale to thousands.
Post reply on HN