Could anybody with applicable experience tell me how this filesystem compares in the real world to Lustre?
If it is decisively better than Lustre, I am happy to make the switch over at my sector in Argonne National Lab where we currently keep about 0.7 PB of image data and eventually intend to hold 3-5 PB once we switch over all 3 of our beamlines to using Dectris X-Ray detectors.
Contrary to what the non-computer scientists insist, we only need about 20Gb/s of throughput in either direction, so robustness and simplicity are the only concerns we have.
should post again when having 5% of the features of the other parallel file systems starting with RDMA, whereby it's not clear if this FS does even stripe that is if it is even a parallel file system
Isn't this literally what ZFS is designed for? What is ZFS lacking that this is needed.
Could anybody with applicable experience tell me how this filesystem compares in the real world to Lustre?
If it is decisively better than Lustre, I am happy to make the switch over at my sector in Argonne National Lab where we currently keep about 0.7 PB of image data and eventually intend to hold 3-5 PB once we switch over all 3 of our beamlines to using Dectris X-Ray detectors.
Contrary to what the non-computer scientists insist, we only need about 20Gb/s of throughput in either direction, so robustness and simplicity are the only concerns we have.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45290245
Great default license.
CephFS looks stable, and has diskprediction and Prometheus modules:
https://docs.ceph.com/en/quincy/cephfs/index.html
https://github.com/ceph/ceph
Still not completely decoupled from host roles, but seems to work for some folks. =3
should post again when having 5% of the features of the other parallel file systems starting with RDMA, whereby it's not clear if this FS does even stripe that is if it is even a parallel file system