4 ms·
That one is derived from MooseFS (https://moosefs.com/ https://moosefs.com/). What turned me away from LizardFS was when they forked the project the very first
by takeda 9y ago
That one is derived from MooseFS (https://moosefs.com/ https://moosefs.com/).
What turned me away from LizardFS was when they forked the project the very first thing they did was rewriting the code to be in C++, this makes much harder to merge future improvements, and feels like they make some decisions for the wrong reason (the user doesn't care what language it is written in)
MooseFS is quite good and has fairly good performance, but its weakness is that is also that the central point is its master, and the open source version doesn't have HA.
I know that LizardFS supposedly has HA (it didn't have it at the time I looked into it), how is that implemented?
- xyproto 9y agoMooseFS can have a second master that takes over if the first one should fail, though.
- takeda 9y agoI'm familiar with 1.x which was very basic, glad they added that. The previous approach with metadataloggers had the issue that before you can convert it to a master you had to merge changelogs which could take a while when you have many files.
- samstave 9y agowhat is the use case where one would want to implement either lizard/moose into prod? Why? What are you solving for with these?
- takeda 9y agoWhen evaluating various distributed filesystems MooseFS[1] was the fastest one. [1] I did not evaluate LizardFS but back then it was freshly forked so it was pretty much the same thing.