6 ms·
BeeGFS, the Parallel Cluster File System
- rubyfan 11y agoWeird, the URL to the GPL'd source code behind a registration wall.
- Loic 11y agoFor what I read, this is to know a bit who is interested in getting the source code. I give you the code but you tell me who you are. This is not prohibited by the GPL.
- mrmondo 11y agoStill seems a bit weird though? Probably enough to put a lot of people off checking it out.
- blinkingled 11y agoYeah, sounds like they would be better off putting up the sources on a public git repo and then develop it in the open. Closed FS development for Linux at least does not seem to work well based on history. They can always have paid support but the closed development part doesn't bode well.
- sigio 11y agoGiven that they would like to keep copyrights on the contributions of third-parties, I doubt many outsiders will contribute. Shame though...
- pjc50 11y agoThe obvious response to this silliness is for one person to download it and then make it available by torrent.
- DoubleMalt 11y agoOr mirror it on GitHub
- sigio 11y agoThe source is at: http://www.beegfs.com/source/ http://www.beegfs.com/source/
- sigio 11y agoThe source is released under the BeeGFS license... which is highly not GPL compatible (or copyleft) ... Only the clients are GPL'd
- leni536 11y agohttp://www.beegfs.com/docs/BeeGFS_EULA.txt http://www.beegfs.com/docs/BeeGFS_EULA.txt Umm, how is this compatible with GPL v2? It seems more restrictive (enterprise features, parts that would be better enforced by a trademark policy).
- rbanffy 11y agoSpeaking of trademarks, there is a band who would want to talk to these guys.
- 6502nerdface 11y agoHow is there any potential for commercial confusion?
- rbanffy 11y agoYou could store music in the filesystem ;-)
- JoachimSchipper 11y agoIt appears that only the "client module" is GPLv2.
- poelzi 11y agofound this interesting: https://indico.cern.ch/event/346931/session/4/contribution/62/attachments/684674/940478/beegfs-at-desy.pdf https://indico.cern.ch/event/346931/session/4/contribution/6... > Plain BeeGFS is as reliable as your hardware currently i would give MooseFS, orangefs or lizardfs a try. Had experience with ceph and glusterfs and both I can not recommend.
- pjc50 11y agoCould you elaborate on this please?
- eis 11y agoI'd be also interested in a bit of info why Ceph and GlusterFS disappointed you. I tried GlusterFS a few years ago and it took a good while to figure out the right setup but in the end had disappointing small file performance. Ceph was very interesting but wasn't product ready when I looked at it and since then it somehow never got to a stage where people would rave about it so that alone makes me think it's maybe too complicated. A bit like BTRFS which also for years and years is being developed and sounds really promising but never seems to be finally ready without gotchas.
- mattbillenstein 11y agoI also tried ceph and gluster before settling on moosefs a couple years ago -- gluster was slow for filesystem operations on a lot of files and it would get into a state where some files weren't replicated properly with seemingly no problems with the network for physical servers. Ceph at that time was unstable -- once I had a couple boxes kernel panic in testing, I jumped off that boat immediately. Moosefs is pragmatic -- written in pretty tight C, performant, and the web UI for seeing the state of the cluster and how files are replicating is very nice. We have a small cluster with maybe a dozen nodes running for almost 2 years now with no hiccups...
- scurvy 11y ago
- unwind 11y agoThe only thing I wonder is if the name is a pun on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_Gees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_Gees, the band from the 1950s.
- murukesh_s 11y agoor if you closely look at the logo..
- rvense 11y agoAllegedly it's good at Staying Alive...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- sharktour 11y agoThis doesn't fill the huge gap for Cloud NAS. GlusterFS is hugely complicated and a fragile install, SoftNAS has (anecdotally) poor performance on high-io... but it's closer. Amazon hasn't launched their EFS product to General Availability Yet. So wtf do we do when we need a 5TB shared storage platform across some EC2 nodes?
- jjawssd 11y agoAt this time you will need to use an EC2 instance serving NFS over a big EBS volume.
- illumin8 11y agoCheck out Avere systems. They have a clustered NFS appliance that you can spin up in EC2, which translates back-end S3 object storage into NFS for your clients. It supports between 3 and 50 nodes, and uses local RAM and SSD cache to accelerate performance. Avere has also been in the NAS acceleration/caching business since 2008, so their product is very mature.
- sharktour 11y agoThanks for the heads up on Avere. Use case for us was for file parsing as part of a batch data pipeline. The latency we saw on alternatives was killer compared to directly mounted EBS. That would be my fear with an S3 option as well, especially when it presents like NFS.
- merb 11y agoActually there isn't a easy file system which spans 3 computers and scales to thousand and is eay to install. There are only one's which are hard to install, or needing more than 3 computers, etc..
- Diederich 11y agoHonest question: how does GlusterFS not meet these goals? I know that it's easy to install, and can easily run on three computers. And I believe it can scale to thousands.
- ollybee 11y agoGluster provides files storage but not block storage.
- Diederich 11y agoTrue enough, thanks!
- merb 11y agoActually GlusterFS is close to my needs, however the "easy to install" and actually bad performance on many small files is a road blocker for us. However it runs well, even on just 3 servers.
- hatsunearu 11y agohttp://www.ceph.com/ http://www.ceph.com/ pretty hard to install (ceph-deploy makes it easier) but I've seen some pretty spiffy claims like really easy scaling and provisioning.
- angrygoat 11y agoI've run a ceph deployment for about 18 months now, it's good. ops-wise it's like anything, a few quirks to learn - but it's very solid. I played around with a couple of puppet modules and ended up on ceph-deploy as well, makes life quite easy.
- craigyk 11y agoI will say that I know two people that have independently tried fairly large trials (400TB+) of Lustre, GlusterFS, and BeeGFS, and BeeGFS was their eventual favorite.
- simonebrunozzi 11y agoNice anecdote, but can you provide at least ANY detail on why they picked BeeGFS?
- hkothari 11y agoCan someone explain how this differs from something like HDFS? I'm kind of confused as to why there's no comparisons or mentions of HDFS here which makes me think I'm missing something important about what this provides that's special. Is it the easy to install part?
- birc_a 11y agoHDFS is designed mostly for immutable files, stores three copies of everything in the default setup and has the whole hadoop calculation stuff. BeeGFS is closer to a normal NFS share. In the default setup it just stores the data once, striped over multiple machines and it supports efficient updates in-place etc.
- mixmastamyk 11y agoIt's a tragedy to think of how deep is your love for the project. Wonder how long it will be stayin' alive? Gives me a night fever just thinking about it.
- shiftpgdn 11y agoThe company I work for has been running BeeGFS for 6 years with no issues. Write and read speeds on Dell storage hardware match or exceed the NetApp appliances we use. We do occasionally have issues where ALL storage nodes must be rebooted but other than it works great.