4 ms·
Actually, persistent storage is fairly hard in itself. Look at what ZFS does to ensure data integrity in the face of phantom writes, dropped writes, bad contro
by dap 10y ago
Actually, persistent storage is fairly hard in itself. Look at what ZFS does to ensure data integrity in the face of phantom writes, dropped writes, bad controllers, and other implicit, non-fatal failures.
- vidarh 10y agoZFS still also have the issue of having to perform well. You have a point, but ZFS is still trivial compared to a proper distributed filesystem, and you could achieve the same reliability much easier than ZFS if you sacrificed the performance.
- dap 10y agoAbsolutely -- I didn't mean to imply that ZFS even comes close to solving the distributed parts of the problem, but rather that a distributed storage system does have to address the problems of putting bits on disk.
- thinkersilver 10y agoThe ClusterHQ guys behind the FlockerHQ found this out the hard way [0]. Initially Flocker was meant to provide a container data migration tool on top of ZFS, now it is a front-end to more established storage systems like Cinder,vSan,EBS,GPD and so on. [0] https://docs.clusterhq.com/en/latest/faq/#what-happened-to-zfs-support https://docs.clusterhq.com/en/latest/faq/#what-happened-to-z...
- zzzcpan 10y ago> Actually, persistent storage is fairly hard in itself Don't we have distributed data storages precisely because it's impossible to guaranty persistence locally? It's kind of a way to not bother trying to solve the impossible, but to achieve some guarantees on a different level.
- wnoise 10y agoThat's one use case, but far more common is reducing latency and increasing bandwidth for distributed computing acting on a shared set of data.