Likelihood to Recommend I think its well suited for all modern programming. simple and ease of use are a plus.
Read full review GFS is well suited for DEVOPS type environments where organizations prefer to invest in servers and DAS (direct attached storage) versus purchasing storage solutions/appliances. GFS allows organizations to scale their storage capacity at a fraction of the price using DAS HDDs versus committing to purchase licenses and hardware from a dedicated storage manufacturer (e.g. NetApp, Dell/EMC, HP, etc.).
Read full review Pros Connecting with multiple application DB of different data types and bringing the normalized data to on a roof/data lake Easy to build the models and analytics that's help better understanding of business operation AI models such as predictions, forecasts, and suggestions based on individual customer patterns or geo-clusters can build easily Read full review Scales; bricks can be easily added to increase storage capacity Performs; I/O is spread across multiple spindles (HDDs), thereby increasing read and write performance Integrates well with RHEL/CentOS 7; if your organization is using RHEL 7, Gluster (GFS) integrates extremely well with that baseline, especially since it's come under the Red Hat portfolio of tools. Read full review Cons Improvement in areas where Software Defined Storage (SDS) can be better utilized with the broad capabilities of IBM storage features. Focus should be shifted towards enabling capabilities of cyber resiliency as the other offerings in the market are already equipped with the same. Broader non-IBM/Lenovo hardware support can be considered, specifically for IBM Storage fusion software offerings Read full review Documentation; using readthedocs demonstrates that the Gluster project isn't always kept up-to-date as far as documentation is concerned. Many of the guides are for previous versions of the product and can be cumbersome to follow at times. Self-healing; our use of GFS required the administrator to trigger an auto-heal operation manually whenever bricks were added/removed from the pool. This would be a great feature to incorporate using autonomous self-healing whenever a brick is added/removed from the pool. Performance metrics are scarce; our team received feedback that online RDBMS transactions did not perform well on distributed file systems (such as GFS), however this could not be substantiated via any online research or white papers. Read full review Alternatives Considered Read full review Gluster is a lot lower cost than the storage industry leaders. However, NetApp and Dell/EMC's product documentation is (IMHO) more mature and hardened against usage in operational scenarios and environments. Using Gluster avoids "vendor lock-in" from the perspective on now having to purchase dedicated hardware and licenses to run it. Albeit, should an organization choose to pay for support for Gluster, they would be paying licensing costs to Red Hat instead of NetApp, Dell, EMC, HP, or VMware. It could be assumed, however, that if an organization wanted to use Gluster, that they were already a Linux shop and potentially already paying Red Hat or Canonical (Debian) for product support, thereby the use of GFS would be a nominal cost adder from a maintenance/training perspective.
Read full review Return on Investment IBM Fusion is ideal for Enterprise businesses or Ecosystems where large data types are in play. And added benefit to bringing them under a platform to add visualization and understanding. Managing and monitoring is easy when compare to other industry tool Read full review Positive - Alignment with the open source community and being able to stay abreast of the latest trending products available. Positive - Reduced procurement and maintenance costs. Negative - Impacts user/system maintainer training in order to teach them how to utilize and troubleshoot the product. Read full review ScreenShots