Edit (Aug-2012):Ceph is finally getting ready. Recently the authors formed Inktank, an independent company to sell commercial support for it. According to some presentaions, the mountable POSIX-compliant filesystem is the uppermost layer and not really tested yet, but the lower layers are being used in production for some time now.
The interesting part is the RADOS layer, which presents an object-based storage with both a 'native' access via the librados library (available for several languages) and an Amazon S3-compatible RESP API. Either one makes it more than adequate for adding massive storage to a web service.
This video is a good description of the philosophy, architecture, capabilities and current status.
In my opinion, the best file system for Linux is MooseFS , it's quite new, but I had an opportunity to compare it with Ceph and Lustre and I say for sure that MooseFS is the best one.
Lustre has been working for us. It's not perfect but it's the only thing we have tried that has not broken down over load. We still get LBUGS from time to time and dealing with 100TB + file systems is never easy but the Lustre system has worked and increased both performance and availability.
像 FhGFS (http://www.fhgfs.com) 这样的现代并行文件系统在这里更加强大，并且还允许您做一些好事，比如在同一台机器上运行服务器和客户端组件（尽管内置的 HA 功能仍在开发中，正如他们团队的某人告诉我的那样，但据我所知，他们的实现将非常出色） 。
If not someone forces you to use it, I would also highly recommend using anything else than Lustre. From what I hear from others and what also gave myself nightmares for quite some time is the fact that Lustre quite easily breaks down in all kinds of situations. And if only a single client in the system breaks down, it puts itself into an endless do_nothing_loop mode typically while holding some important global lock - so the next time another client tries to access the same information, it will also hang. Thus, you often end up rebooting the whole cluster, which I guess is something you would try to avoid normally ;)
Modern parallel file systems like FhGFS (http://www.fhgfs.com) are way more robust here and also allow you to do nice things like running server and client components on the same machines (though built-in HA features are still under development, as someone from their team told me, but their implementation is going to be pretty awesome from what I've heard).
发布评论
评论（7）
另请检查 GlusterFS
编辑（2012 年 8 月）： Ceph 终于准备好了。 最近，作者成立了 Inktank，一家独立公司，为其提供商业支持。 根据一些介绍，可安装的 POSIX 兼容文件系统是最上层，尚未经过真正测试，但较低层已在生产中使用了一段时间。
有趣的部分是 RADOS 层，它提供了一个基于对象的存储，可以通过 librados 库（可用于多种语言）进行“本机”访问，也可以通过与 Amazon S3 兼容的 RESP API 进行访问。 任何一种都足以为 Web 服务添加海量存储。
该视频很好地描述了理念、架构、功能和当前状态。
check also GlusterFS
Edit (Aug-2012): Ceph is finally getting ready. Recently the authors formed Inktank, an independent company to sell commercial support for it. According to some presentaions, the mountable POSIX-compliant filesystem is the uppermost layer and not really tested yet, but the lower layers are being used in production for some time now.
The interesting part is the RADOS layer, which presents an object-based storage with both a 'native' access via the
libradoslibrary (available for several languages) and an Amazon S3-compatible RESP API. Either one makes it more than adequate for adding massive storage to a web service.This video is a good description of the philosophy, architecture, capabilities and current status.
在我看来，Linux 上最好的文件系统是 MooseFS ，它很新，但我有机会将它与 Ceph 和 Lustre 进行比较，我可以肯定地说 MooseFS 是最好的。
In my opinion, the best file system for Linux is MooseFS , it's quite new, but I had an opportunity to compare it with Ceph and Lustre and I say for sure that MooseFS is the best one.
Gluster 目前受到了很多媒体的关注：
http://www.gluster.org/
Gluster is getting quite a lot of press at the moment:
http://www.gluster.org/
Lustre 一直在为我们服务。 它并不完美，但它是我们尝试过的唯一没有因过载而崩溃的东西。 我们仍然时不时地遇到 LBUGS，处理 100TB 以上的文件系统绝非易事，但 Lustre 系统已经发挥作用，并提高了性能和可用性。
Lustre has been working for us. It's not perfect but it's the only thing we have tried that has not broken down over load. We still get LBUGS from time to time and dealing with 100TB + file systems is never easy but the Lustre system has worked and increased both performance and availability.
如果没有人强迫你使用它，我也强烈建议使用 Lustre 之外的其他东西。 从我从其他人那里听到的以及让我自己在相当长一段时间内做噩梦的事实来看，Luster 在各种情况下都很容易崩溃。 如果系统中只有一个客户端发生故障，它通常会将自己置于无休止的 do_nothing_loop 模式，同时持有一些重要的全局锁 - 因此下次另一个客户端尝试访问相同的信息时，它也会挂起。 因此，您经常最终会重新启动整个集群，我想这是您通常会尽量避免的事情；）
像 FhGFS (http://www.fhgfs.com) 这样的现代并行文件系统在这里更加强大，并且还允许您做一些好事，比如在同一台机器上运行服务器和客户端组件（尽管内置的 HA 功能仍在开发中，正如他们团队的某人告诉我的那样，但据我所知，他们的实现将非常出色） 。
If not someone forces you to use it, I would also highly recommend using anything else than Lustre. From what I hear from others and what also gave myself nightmares for quite some time is the fact that Lustre quite easily breaks down in all kinds of situations. And if only a single client in the system breaks down, it puts itself into an endless do_nothing_loop mode typically while holding some important global lock - so the next time another client tries to access the same information, it will also hang. Thus, you often end up rebooting the whole cluster, which I guess is something you would try to avoid normally ;)
Modern parallel file systems like FhGFS (http://www.fhgfs.com) are way more robust here and also allow you to do nice things like running server and client components on the same machines (though built-in HA features are still under development, as someone from their team told me, but their implementation is going to be pretty awesome from what I've heard).
Ceph 看起来是一个很有前途的新进入领域。 该网站声称它尚未准备好用于生产使用。
Ceph looks to be a promising new-ish entry into the arena. The site claims it's not ready for production use yet though.
我读了很多关于分布式文件系统的文章，我认为 FhGFS 是最好的。
http://www.fhgfs.com/
值得一试。 有关详细信息，请访问：
http://www.fhgfs.com/wiki/
I read a lot about distributed filesystems and I think FhGFS is the best.
http://www.fhgfs.com/
It worth a try. See more about it at:
http://www.fhgfs.com/wiki/