Hi Remo, we're using glusterFS in production env and without bigger problems until now :). The glusterFS 3.4 is stable and have some features for autohealing and rebalancing. In addition the native support in qemu 1.7+ for more performance throughput have increased the I/O for ~20%.
I need to say, we don't use it for all instance images (root or/and ephemeral) it's only for persistent storage like databases, logs ... in all running instances. I think the 'improved support' which Mirantis means is the native support of qemu. I hope it helps. Cheers Heiko On 08.01.2014 20:51, Remo Mattei wrote: > Hello everyone, > while back some people were saying that the performance of GlusterFS was not acceptable in OpenStack. I have found this article and I wonder if anyone has had the opportunity to see if this has really improved. > > OpenStack Havana: GlusterFS, and what “improved support” really means > > http://www.mirantis.com/blog/openstack-havana-glusterfs-and-what-improved-support-really-means/ > > I will be happy to see what everyone has to say. > > Thanks > > Remo > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org > Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack _______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
