[Openstack] why did openstack choose ceph (and not glusterfs)

Patrick McGarry patrick at inktank.com
Fri Jul 12 16:54:01 UTC 2013

Awesome, must have missed that.  Thanks Stefano!

Best Regards,

Patrick McGarry
Director, Community || Inktank
http://ceph.com  ||  http://inktank.com
@scuttlemonkey || @ceph || @inktank

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org>wrote:

> On Fri 12 Jul 2013 06:53:46 AM PDT, Patrick McGarry wrote:
> > In fact, we'd love to see a similar abstracted approach on the object
> > storage side as well.
> Indeed, there is some work already going in this direction for OpenStack
> Object Storage. A couple of Red Hat engineers are working on  LFS, Local
> File System (https://github.com/zaitcev/swift-lfs and
> http://zaitcev.livejournal.com/215159.html, plus there is something in
> review on review.openstack.org, too) to allow swift to better integrate
> with different filesystems.
> Something like LFS was originally proposed by Nexenta a while back but
> their patch unfortunately never merged.
> LFS was mentioned on swiftstack blog after the summit in Portland.
> details on
> http://swiftstack.com/blog/2013/04/24/openstack-summit-api-discussion/
> stef
> --
> Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20130712/0a3f230e/attachment.html>

More information about the Openstack mailing list