Interesting poll on Lustre futures

See here on LinkedIn.

In case you can’t see it, the premise of the question is “Would you buy storage based on Lustre”, and it specifically points to Rich B’s article at InsideHPC.

Choices are

  1. Yes, still Lustre
  2. No, I’d choose Panasas
  3. No, I’d choose GPFS
  4. No, I’d choose Gluster
  5. No, another solution

Its a small, self selecting, and probably badly biased sample, but whats interesting is that about 20% each seem like they would choose Lustre, Panasas, or another solution and about 40% would choose GPFS, with no one choosing Gluster.

25 people responding, and again, a small, self selecting group. Statistics are likely not really representative.

This said, I think we have a pretty good readership here and at InsideHPC. I’d like to get the same type of poll going. See the poll thingy on the right …

Viewed 9068 times by 2189 viewers

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

6 thoughts on “Interesting poll on Lustre futures

  1. The poll has the same problem as the LinkedIn one… Who says I can use only one of those file systems? Some can run off the same (or similar enough) back-ends… And then there’s the curious case of glusterfs plug-ins.

    I voted for Ceph just because I think it’s neat. But really I’d love to see one that’s fast, passes a strong battery of tests, and can cope with HPC-style failure modes (so less worried about wide-area-style partitioning than plain old node/disk/memory death). The phrasing used over the wire isn’t as much a concern to me.

  2. Changed from radio button to checkbox. Might throw off stats somewhat … I’ll have to look at their logic at some point.

Comments are closed.