On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Kaiting Chen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Thomas S Hatch <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The difference is that Gluster is a nightmare!
> > The problem with gluster is that the replication is tiered, and that
> > is no metadata. The client is then the master, this means that if you
> > connect to gluster with a mis-configured client you can have large scale
> > data corruption.
> > Next since the replication of data is tiered you don't have true
> > replication, so only the gluster server you connect to to save the data
> > the correct data, if that server goes down the replications are old and
> > have data corruption.
> > The gluster devs actually had to recall gluster 3.1 because the data
> > corruption was rampant.
> > The difference between gluster and MooseFS is that MooseFS works!
> > MooseFS also has a cool web frontend
> > We were using gluster and the business cost became catastrophic, picking
> > the peices was a nightmare.
> > MooseFS saves data to replication nodes in paralell! MooseFS maintains a
> > master metalogger so client connections are agnostic.
> > MooseFS maintains metadata replication so you can restore is something
> > happens to the master.
> > I take it you don't like FUSE? EVERYBODY is doing it
> > I am looking forward to Ceph, which does not require fuse, but I don't
> > think
> > it is going to be production ready for at least a year, and MooseFS
> > compete with Ceph IMHO.
> > If there are GlusterFS devs in the room, please disregard the previous
> Thanks for the very thorough answer. And yes I hate the idea of a
> in userspace. Everyone knows the FS's should be in kernel space! Mostly
> the fact that in my opinion bypassing the kernel's caching mechanism is
> entirely impractical for a high performance FS. Feel free to correct me if
> I'm wrong.
> Anyways your application looks really good. Good luck! --Kaiting.
> Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
I was looking back at my post and worrying that it was too much of a rant
I spend a month full time testing and trying distributed filesystems and my
conclusion was that MooseFS is the best one out there.
I agree that fuse is something that should be used with caution, and that a
filesystem does belong in kernel space. But in the situation of a
distributed filesystem I thought that the benefits of fuse in allowing for
higher flexibility made it a permissible option. All in all I think that
fuse for network filesystems can be a huge advantage, on the other hand I am
much more cautious about local filesystems that operate behind fuse.
So to sum it up, I feel good with moosefs, sshfs, but am cautious when
looking at things like zfs-fuse.
But with that said, I don't believe in disparaging someone's project on the
grounds of what it is, the fact that people are creating new things and
sharing them is a wonderful thing!
On the other hand, I will speak my mind when someone's project corrupts my