On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Kaiting Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Thomas S Hatch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The difference is that Gluster is a nightmare! > > > > The problem with gluster is that the replication is tiered, and that > there > > 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 > has > > the correct data, if that server goes down the replications are old and > you > > 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 > up > > 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 > easily > > compete with Ceph IMHO. > > > > If there are GlusterFS devs in the room, please disregard the previous > rant > > :) > > > > Thanks for the very thorough answer. And yes I hate the idea of a > filesystem > in userspace. Everyone knows the FS's should be in kernel space! Mostly > it's > 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/ > Thanks Kaiting! 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 data :)
