Quote:
Originally Posted by eming
it's what softlayer is using - and it works well for a lot of purposes.
|
I actually don't believe they're using it - I think they're using Mezeo. I could be wrong though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eming
We've found it to be very client-side focused and eventually it did not do what we wanted from a cloud-storage solution. It is a strange beast somewhere in the middle of S3 and Dropbox...
|
This would make sense if you're thinking about Mezeo - which is basically all front-end, and expects scalable storage on the back-end (e.g. doesn't actually provide the global name space, redundancy, scalability or any of the "expensive" storage functions.) Mezeo does seem to offer a many nice front-end access methods - but it won't solve your back-end storage problems.
To the OP, Parascale, on the other hand, can and will solve "back-end" storage issues (and allows you to build your own storage cloud, somewhat similar to S3 - you just need to bring the hardware). Unlike Mezeo or Dropbox, doesn't provide any GUIs for interacting with the files (though it does have a GUI to manage the storage cluster(s)).
We've been using Parascale for almost 6 months and have been very pleased. It offers horizontally scalable storage and I/O, without hardware-vendor lock-in (read: cheaper disks, cheaper storage), as well as solving the reliability issues with silos of storage (single servers holding segments of your content). There's lots more to it as well - but
It supports access via NFS, FTP, and WebDAV straight into the cloud which is nice - and a lot of additional features.
Whether it's worth trying all depends on what you're doing and what you expect Parascale to do for you. If you have a need for high volume, scalable storage (e.g. more than a few TB), then absolutely, Parascale is worth a shot.
If you want to know more about how we're using it, just drop me an email and I'm happy to chat about it.
-Sam
Linear Mode
