Scalable Performance of the Panasas Parallel File System

By B. Welch, M. Unangst, Zainul Abbasi, Garth A. Gibson, Brian Mueller, Jason Small, J. Zelenka, Bin Zhou. USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies, 2008

418 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bfef837ff24fedf790a15294e2b788479ed50fb6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Secure data deduplication (2008, methodology): “Highperformance distributed file systems such as the Panasas Par llel File System [37], Ceph [35], and Lustre [7] typically have mu ch less security than “standard” distributed file systems, tra ding higher performance for lower security.”
PLFS: a checkpoint filesystem for parallel applications (2009, methodology): “Translating random access checkpoint writes into a sequential pattern is an idea which extends naturally from work on log-structured file systems [38] such as NetApp’s WAFL [17] and Panasas’s Object Storage [47].”
A Performance Evaluation and Examination of Open-Source Erasure Coding Libraries for Storage (2009, methodology): “Storage companies such as Allmydata [1], Cleversafe [7], Data Domain [36], Network Appliance [22] and Panasas [32] are all delivering products that use erasure codes beyond RAID-5 for data availability.”
FTI: High performance Fault Tolerance Interface for hybrid systems (2011, background): “Overall, although several PFS, such as Panasas [11], GPFS [12] and Lustre[13], have made important progress in performance, PFS based checkpoint is a time expensive approach, that is only required for a small percentage of failures[1, 2].”