Gluster indeed provides both block and object storage. We use the Gluster Cinder driver <http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/glusterfs_backend.html> in production and, short of some initial hiccups, it's been running great.
I have no experience with Gluster's object storage support, though, so I can't give an opinion about it -- just confirmation that it exists. :) My personal opinion is to just use Swift for object storage. Sure you won't have the whole unified storage thing going on, but you'll get Swift. :) On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jesse Pretorius <jesse.pretor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 November 2014 13:01, Hossein Zabolzadeh <zabolza...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for your opinion. But I am looking for the real difference >> between them... >> - Which one is better support in openstack? >> - Which one provides better unified storage backend for all openstack >> storage controllers(cinder, swift and glance)? >> > > I don't think that Gluster or Sheepdog provide a storage back-end capable > of providing block storage (cinder) and object storage (swift) back-ends. > Only Ceph provides a properly unified back-end for both. Ceph has also been > supported for cinder for over two years - it's very mature. The Rados > Gateway (Object Storage/Swift Interface) is much more recent, but I have > yet to see problems with it - as long as you do acknowledge that it is not > Swift. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
