Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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 have been looking at GlusterFS and MogileFS (Ceph and BTRFS are off the cards for me, as they don't seem production ready yet).

I am developing a web app for file sharing, that will store and retrieve files from a distributed file system.

It's looking something like;

  • Web app servers handle puts/gets
  • Web app servers query DB servers for file locations / or insert details for new file, and get a spacious file server address
  • Web app servers retrieve file from given file location from DB server / upload to given file server from DB server

I'm torn between GlustFS and MogileFS for the back end storage. GlusterFS was going to be my original choice, although I'm still reading about it as I haven't used it before (can't see anything wrong with it though!). However, for this specific purpose of file sharing over HTTP, I have heard a few times that MogileFS is best suited for such a purpose (again though, I've never used MogileFS either).

Can anyone comment on either for such an application, and why one might be better than the other? (Here, better means: more scalable, more efficient, better I/O, easier to manager, better supported in Linux, better monitoring and reporting, those sorts of points).

share|improve this question
What is the real question here? Do you just need a comment on either of those two? If that's the case than please accept the only answer you got. – Niko S P Feb 28 '12 at 0:56
Well it's only been a week. I would like to hear from someone that favours MogileFS why they like it so much, as I have already heard from you, someone that favours GlusterFS on why you like it so much. – jwbensley Mar 1 '12 at 11:14
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I have tried both for a similar application and i am clearly favoring GlusterFS.
Wether it is installing, adding new nodes, managing nodes/volumes, it is generally easier with GlusterFS.
As far as scalability goes, you can easily scale your storage by adding new nodes/bricks to the volumes.

Managing, well, you have CLI utilities to show the status/health of the cluster and the peers/bricks/volumes, nothing fancy, but enough to work with.

They provide you with deb or rpm packages, so installation is a matter of minutes.
If you are using the newest, config-file-less version, you just need to add the new peer to your storage pool and add the new bricks to your desired volumes.

I don't know what else to tell you, except that i am extremely happy with GlusterFS in a 80+TB Cluster of 30+ Servers.

If you have any specific questions i am happy to help

share|improve this answer
I have done some research and have been leaning towards GlusterFS and as a user of GlusterFS your input backs that up, so thanks :D – jwbensley Apr 11 '12 at 11:17

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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