[Pvfs2-users] RE: lustre and pvfs comparison

[Joe Georger]

I was just reading the Lustre site this morning.  I have run PVFS on a
very small cluster and found it easy to install and worked quite well. 
It also supports a lot more OS's than do other distributed filesystems. 
We are currently running Ibrix on a larger setup but I am not too happy
with it, nor their tech support....

>From what I understand Lustre offers redundancy in the form of server
failover, and I think I read at their site files can be striped across
luns in a raid5 fashion to give even a little more protection.  I don't
think pvfs offers any redundancy yet, but I am not sure since it's been
over 6 months since I looked at it and I am a newb to boot.

Joe

Dries Kimpe wrote:
> Installation wise,
> compared to lustre, PVFS is unbelievable easy to install...
>
>  Greetings,
>  Dries
>
>
> Pappas, Bill schreef:
>>
>>  
>>
>> > I'm looking for some feedback from luster and pvfs users.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Specifically ---I'm interested in any thoughts on why one would go
>> to luster or pvfs
>>
>> > for their hpc file system needs.
>>
>> > What fundamentally makes pvfs different from lustre?
>>
>> > I realize that one may claim (that for specific requirements) luster
>>
>> > or pvfs may be more suitable or just plain better.
>>
>> > So....I'd like to know which requirement(s) led you to luster or pvfs?
>>
>> > I would definitely like to know any limitations you've seen in either
>>
>> > fs.  Installation complications? Scalabilty. Reliability. Speed.
>>
>>   
>