3 ms·
Syncthing does redundancy by default, no? Just add a node. But RAID and Syncthing aren't substitutes for backups, for the same reason: no restore if your data
by zurn 10y ago
Syncthing does redundancy by default, no? Just add a node.
But RAID and Syncthing aren't substitutes for backups, for the same reason: no restore if your data get hosed.
- gravypod 10y agoI don't really want syncing. I want a distrabution of the blocks of the filesystem that allows for redundant storage & expansion of storage space. RW times would be slower but storage would be bigger and more redundant.
- onli 10y agoIs it possible you look for something like Ceph? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph_(software)
- gravypod 10y agoThat seems to be focused on throughput. I'm focused on how much data I can store into the system and if it's redundant so long as N nodes don't die (and if they do I'd like it to attempt to reorganize the network so they system keeps working with N node failure).
- jabl 10y agoTahoe-LAFS ( https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs ) then?
- onli 10y agoI don' t think so. My experience with it is non-existent, but I read up on it before and now again, and self-healing and replication was pretty high on the feature list. Anyway, what you describes is a distributed/clustered (fault-tolerant) file system. Tahoe-LAFS as mentioned by jabl is one of those, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Distributed_file_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Distribut... has a list.