Red Hat Gluster Storage Reviews

Gluster FS is used for various purposes, including virtualization, collaboration, and data center environments. It is also applied in personal environments. Some specific use cases mentioned include scaling a three-terabyte file system into a 12-terabyte file system with minimal downtime.

Gluster FS allows for both horizontal and vertical scaling, making it possible to add as many disks or nodes as needed, ranging from a few gigabytes to petabytes. This flexibility enables effective management of storage resources and smooth scaling for projects.

Notable features of Gluster FS include flexibility, scalability, stability, and ease of use. The system is administered through a command line, which is described as very easy.

There is a feature in Red Hat’s commercial version that could be beneficial if integrated into the open-source version. This feature involves managing storage pools with different technologies and moving data between them based on usage patterns. Implementing this feature in the open-source version would enhance its functionality.

I have had around five years of continuous experience with Gluster FS.

Through five years of experience, the system has been very stable. There have been no issues with crashes, and the self-healing feature is highly effective, ensuring data integrity even during outages or server damage.

Gluster FS allows for extensive scalability both horizontally and vertically. This flexibility supports adding as many disks or nodes as needed, ensuring that the storage system can grow with the demands of the organization.

Red Hat's documentation is excellent, providing extensive support. Additionally, the Gluster community is very supportive, offering valuable resources and assistance.

Positive

Other storage solutions, such as Ceph and ZFS, were used. While these products are robust, they were more complex to implement compared to Gluster FS.

Ceph and ZFS were also considered. However, they were found to be more complex to implement compared to Gluster FS.

I would highly recommend Gluster FS to others considering it. The system is robust, flexible, and easy to use. I'd rate it ten out of ten.

The solution is used in banks and financial institutions. Customers use the replicated configuration for high availability. They either use the native Gluster client or configure it with NFS. Customers store some log files in the product.

The simplicity of the implementation is valuable. It doesn't require much resources.

The performance of the solution must be improved.

I have been using the solution for six to seven years.

I rate the tool’s stability a five out of ten. Everything depends on how the product is implemented because we can have complex configurations depending on the requirements. However, in a simple deployment, it's usually very stable.

The tool is scalable. We have five customers who use the product.

The technical support team is excellent. Very good engineers work in support.

The initial setup is easy. Everything was deployed and configured using Ansible. The deployment took five minutes since the process was automated.

The performance depends on how the tool is implemented. Many customers were implementing the cluster on top of virtual machines. We do not know whether the performance issues were with the virtualized storage or something else. I implement the solution for customers.

My recommendation would depend on the requirements of an organization. The tool can be used for everything. It will be perfect for searching logs and files. However, the product will not be suitable for databases. I would recommend running high-performance applications for databases on top of the solution. For the ease of implementation and usability, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We're using the product for storage. 

The most valuable feature of the product is that it's very easy to upgrade storage.

In terms of improvement, my initial suggestion would be that the user interface could be simplified. For now, it requires training to be able to use it. 

I would like to see a more simplified version in the future, a product where the interaction is simple. 

We've just started using the solution - we've had it for about a month and are still evaluating it. 

The product is stable. 

The solution is very scalable.

We have been using the technical support and so far it's been very good. 

I haven't previously used another system in this category. 

The initial setup was very straightforward.

We're still testing and evaluating this option. 

I would rate this product a seven out of 10. 

We are using as a transition data storage. We have some use case where it has performed bad, and we have some use cases where it has performed well.

It has helped, but the solution can be difficult because we buy hardware. Therefore, it's not always a good solution.

• If it is designed correctly, it can be used for everything. 
• It has high availability, and that is what we need it for.
• The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided.

• I would like them to enhance the current features.
• The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage.
• I would like a more centralized open management system.

The stability is very good.

We have not scaled it very much, but we know it can scale.

We have got it through Red Hat for support. They are okay. We have not used it much for this type of storage.

I was not involved in the first setup.

If you need cheap storage, but still need high availability, it's a good product to look at.

We chose Red Hat Gluster Storage because we were already Red Hat customer when we had to choose.

Try it, but be careful. Also, look into other vendors.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: We like to use vendors that we already use.