[Openstack-operators] OpenStack Storage Backend: Sheepdog, Ceph, or GlusterFS

Joe Topjian joe at topjian.net
Fri Nov 7 09:50:40 UTC 2014

Gluster indeed provides both block and object storage.

We use the Gluster Cinder driver
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.pretorius at gmail.com>

> On 6 November 2014 13:01, Hossein Zabolzadeh <zabolzadeh at 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 at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20141107/75b1367b/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list