Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am evaluating GlusterFS and Ceph, seems Gluster is FUSE based which means it may be not as fast as Ceph. But looks like Gluster got a very friendly control panel and is ease to use.

Ceph was merged into linux kernel a few days ago and this indicates that it has much more potential energy and may be a good choice in the future.

I am wondering which(even out of the two?) is a better choice for production use? It would be nice if you could share your practical experiences

share|improve this question

closed as too localized by Mark Henderson May 27 '13 at 7:35

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I know of a few GlusterFS installments being used in production. You may want to look at some of the Scalable Informatics products if you want a commercially supported system.

The GlusterFS team also had a booth at Supercomputing 09 where they demoed their systems. I think it's by no means a "mature" technology, but it's certainly usable in production in its current state. Note that by their very nature clustered filesystems are finicky to set up and maintain.

As far as Ceph goes, I've never heard of anyone using it for anything other than testing. It itself is based on a regular filesystem that hasn't even reached maturity yet (Btrfs). I wouldn't use it for anything other than a plaything at this point.

share|improve this answer

From the Ceph wiki at [ ]:

"Ceph is under heavy development, and is not yet suitable for any uses other than benchmarking and review."

Also, Ceph does seem to make use of btrfs which is under active development as well. Between the two, GlusterFS should be the obvious choice for your needs as of now.

share|improve this answer
Yeah, that pretty much makes it unsuitable for any production systems. – Kamil Kisiel Apr 1 '10 at 5:43
That comment is outdated as of today. Ceph is now considered a production-ready filesystem by developers at Ceph. – Erik Aronesty Sep 21 '12 at 16:52
@ErikAronesty CephFS still isn't considered production-ready by Ceph developers, although the object storage and block device interfaces of Ceph are considered production-ready. See – Lorin Hochstein Dec 12 '12 at 19:02

You want gluster 3.0.x, I've just been lurking on the emailing list for gluster, and with ceph making it into the Linux kernel, I'm looking at that again (I figure it will get stable enough quick).

For the gluster archive (well, for March 2010):

Note that there is the gluser fs, and the gluster storage system (dedicated systems). Related, but not the same thing.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.