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

This is the same question that was asked here, but it's been almost two years since.

Meanwhile Ceph has seen constant development (361 kernel commits) and btrfs, in my opinion, is on the verge of production readiness. Both projects' web sites have (dated) sections that clearly state otherwise, though.

Gluster not being inactive either has since managed to put out releases 3.1, 3.2 and is about to release version 3.3. Along the way they were acquired by Red Hat, which probably contributes to steady development for the mid distant future.

So, has Ceph gained any production level deployments yet? How does it compare to GlusterFS nowadays?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Iain, Scott Pack, MDMarra, Chris S, RobM Jan 9 '12 at 17:57

Questions on Server Fault are expected to relate to server, networking, or related infrastructure administration within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

My money's on Gluster, because that's where my experience lies. It's also got the most people using it in production already, so the community support is there. – Tom O'Connor Jan 9 '12 at 14:37
up vote 3 down vote accepted

"Better" - difficult term, but Gluster is in production and supported, which in my mind counts for a lot more than features and development - your view may differ.

share|improve this answer

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