Python proof of concept code.
http://blog.koshigoe.jp/archives/2007/04/fuse.html
It doesn't appear to cache contents, only stat.
Also, on a philisophical side note. I am floored by how often almost
identical ideas are conceived of by different people at the same time.
Look at the date on that blog entry!
Best,
Erik Osteramn
Cal Heldenbrand wrote:
This is really cool! One section of our application is mapping, which
uses MapServer <http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/> along with ka-map
<http://ka-map.maptools.org/>. For tiles & shape files, we have an
NFS backend (a bigass NetApp box) to serve all of these up. Granted,
the netapp performs really well, and serving up static tiles seems to
be an easy task for it at the moment. If this particular service
becomes really popular, I could see that a large cache could be
helpful to our architecture.
I would definitely be excited if someone started working on this. (I
might even help out if I can!)
--Cal
--
Cal Heldenbrand
FBS Data Systems
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 5/9/07, *Erik Osterman* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
MogileFS is pretty sweet; I'll give it that. We considered it
pretty seriously before going with GlusterFS. Since MogileFS
relies on application modifications, which isn't a possibility
when the application is blackbox, we ultimately decided against
it. I don't think they finished the fuse module either, and the
web page still says, "We've prototyped a FUSE binding, so you
could use MogileFS without application support, but it's not
production-ready."
Also, I'm less thrilled about managing MogileFS with all of its
Perl depenencies. Memcache and GlusterFS are a cakewalk in
comparison to setup and configure. Granted, GlusterFS isn't yet
fully production worthy, it's been stable for us.
Note that CacheFS is not dependent on the underlying filesystem,
so a MemcacheFS developed in the same fashion could straddle
multiple exported filesystem types, such as NFS, GlusterFS, SMB,
OpenAFS, and even MogileFS. In much the same way Memcache doesn't
tie you to one database, MemcacheFS wouldn't tie you to one type
of networked filesystem.
Thanks for the suggestion...
Erik Osterman
Bruce Wang wrote:
On 5/9/07, *Erik Osterman* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Right, this is along the same lines, but not generalized.
They made Lighty Memcache aware, but that doesn't do much for
other applications, e.g. our XSLT processor which can only
access files. Further more, since it's not generalized, the
cached data cannot easily be shared by many unrelated
applications. So, if different applications employ their own
Memcache caching strategy, a lot of memory is waisted on
duplicate data. Though, embracing this idea, one could use
Lighty + modmemcache + webdav + fuse but that sounds very slow :)
http://danga.com/mogilefs/
Is this what you want? Also by Brad Fitzpatrick
<http://bradfitz.com/>
--
simple is good
http://brucewang.net
skype: number5
