3 ms·
Working on a distributed file system (Quobyte), I'd say the order of complexity is file > block > object. Why? Because a drop-in replacement for a local file sy
by fh973 10y ago
Working on a distributed file system (Quobyte), I'd say the order of complexity is file > block > object. Why? Because a drop-in replacement for a local file system also needs to be good at high-performance concurrent block IO, otherwise you wouldn't be able to run applications like databases.
- jacques_chester 10y agoSo am I wrong in thinking FS semantics can give some hints on how to optimise activity? That is: a pure block store must treat every operation with identical care, as it has no insight into the higher-level meaning. But a filesystem can, for example, give consideration to whether it's a write, read, create or appending op; where in the file it's happening; the order of operations; metadata vs file contents and so on. Again, I am only distantly familiar with any of this.
- zzzcpan 10y ago"block store must treat every operation with identical care" Yes, and because of that it's easier to do a block storage, than a filesystem. But sure, filesystems have enough semantics to potentially scale across multiple data centers and probably be performant enough for many apps to tolerate those latencies. However, the level of complexity would be similar to that of Google's Spanner.
- jacques_chester 10y agoThankyou.