4 ms·

I've been using SeaweedFS (previously WeedFS) in production for a couple of years. I needed to share files on a LAN, including small VPS, so distributed file sy

by jusob 10y ago

I've been using SeaweedFS (previously WeedFS) in production for a couple of years. I needed to share files on a LAN, including small VPS, so distributed file systems(like GlusterFS) that require a kernel module did not work for me. I store small files. Random access with WeedFS is very constant and fast. If you use multiple volume servers, the ID is unique across all servers. You get redirected to the right volume if you try to access an ID on the wrong server, which does add latency. My biggest complain is about replication. You can define rules, like replicate on the same rack or different rack, how many copies, etc. But it SeaweedFS fails to replicate a file, it does not store it at all. I would prefer a best-effort duplication rather than a guarantee. This is a big issue when master synchronization fails for some reason and only 1 volume is "visible" for some period of time.

jdcarter 10y ago
Can you tell us more about your production environment? Like how much data, average IOPS, and uptime requirements? I've been poking around and I can't find any real info on who's using this or how. The project's interesting and I'd love to hear more.
- jusob 10y ago
  I use it to store many small files (JSON and images). My requirements were: 1. predictable read time 2. read/write access through LAN 3. server easily installable on VPS 4. simple API The main downsides I found so far: 1. Master splitting are very hard to recover from. They happen rarely but when it does, be ready to restart master many times in random order. Latest version seems to have fixed it 2. No easy way to list the content of a volume. You need to use the command line on the volume files 3. Cleanup is hard (compacting the volume files), I fee that the GarbageThreshold is not working well 4. Hard to resize the volumes (i.e. set lower limits) after it has been started 5. Replication, as I mentionned in another comment Overall it works fine for me. The potential alternative (not fully tested) was Cassandar (the 64MB limit per object when I checked is fine with me).
jiqiren 10y ago
GlusterFS does not require any kernel modules. It runs in user space and only when mounting with FUSE or NFS is the kernel in play.

by jusob 10y ago

jdcarter 10y ago

Can you tell us more about your production environment? Like how much data, average IOPS, and uptime requirements? I've been poking around and I can't find any real info on who's using this or how. The project's interesting and I'd love to hear more.

jusob 10y ago
I use it to store many small files (JSON and images). My requirements were: 1. predictable read time 2. read/write access through LAN 3. server easily installable on VPS 4. simple API The main downsides I found so far: 1. Master splitting are very hard to recover from. They happen rarely but when it does, be ready to restart master many times in random order. Latest version seems to have fixed it 2. No easy way to list the content of a volume. You need to use the command line on the volume files 3. Cleanup is hard (compacting the volume files), I fee that the GarbageThreshold is not working well 4. Hard to resize the volumes (i.e. set lower limits) after it has been started 5. Replication, as I mentionned in another comment Overall it works fine for me. The potential alternative (not fully tested) was Cassandar (the 64MB limit per object when I checked is fine with me).

jiqiren 10y ago

GlusterFS does not require any kernel modules. It runs in user space and only when mounting with FUSE or NFS is the kernel in play.