Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Categories

In this Discussion

› › Network Storage Cluster, but which Software?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Network Storage Cluster, but which Software?

NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran
in Help

Hey,

I am looking to connect the Storage of 5 Servers+ together, using Debian mostly.

The Software should also support replication of files like 2-3 times.

CEPH seems not to be the ideal use case, since the Servers are sometimes up to 100ms far away and such a setup is not recommended.

Thanks.

Comments

  • AlyssaDAlyssaD Member

    TahoeLAFS might be an option.

    During my own tests with GlusterFS it was unusable with anything over 50ms of delay between servers.

    Also how big are the files that you are storing?

    Thanked by 1ehab
  • vishalpatelzvishalpatelz Member

    Use NFS?

  • simonindiasimonindia Member

    TahoeLAFS may be the way to go

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

    GlusterFS is the way to go, TahoeLAFS is slow as fuck, no way.

  • seanhoseanho Member

    OP, would you mind sharing a bit more with us about how the shared storage will be used? Will it be accessed frequently, or archived for long-term storage? How frequently / how much will data be written / modified? Is the replication desired for purposes of high availability (e.g., keep site online in case of temporary downtime of a host), or disaster recovery (in which case recovery time is not a big priority)?

    In my limited experience, Gluster is great for near-real-time sync across low-latency links, but Tahoe is more resilient across flaky, high-latency WANs. Tahoe survives better on low-RAM VPSes, but it really can be quite slow fetching large files, as the chunks are scattered across several nodes. It's been a number of years since I've used either, though, so they might have improved.

    There's also XtreemFS, MooseFS, and others...

    Thanked by 1WebProject
  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

    @seanho said:
    OP, would you mind sharing a bit more with us about how the shared storage will be used? Will it be accessed frequently, or archived for long-term storage? How frequently / how much will data be written / modified? Is the replication desired for purposes of high availability (e.g., keep site online in case of temporary downtime of a host), or disaster recovery (in which case recovery time is not a big priority)?

    In my limited experience, Gluster is great for near-real-time sync across low-latency links, but Tahoe is more resilient across flaky, high-latency WANs. Tahoe survives better on low-RAM VPSes, but it really can be quite slow fetching large files, as the chunks are scattered across several nodes. It's been a number of years since I've used either, though, so they might have improved.

    There's also XtreemFS, MooseFS, and others...

    As I said, GlusterFS has been choosen now, I have spoken.

    Well Uploading a file to Tahoe gives me 0.3 to 0.7Mb/s, GlusterFS gives me in the same Setup 3 - 6MB/s, that one reason is enought to keep GlusterFS.

  • seanhoseanho Member

    Oop, sorry, I didn't notice you'd already made your decision! Glad Gluster is working out for you. All the best!

  • doughnetdoughnet Member

    +1 for glusterfs

    I played with it doing some HA web servers and it performed best

Sign In or Register to comment.