3 ms·
Open-source data storage is full of gaps compared to its commercial/bespoke brethren. To give just one example, consider multi-tenancy/QoS. Very few OSS distrib
by notacoward 7y ago
Open-source data storage is full of gaps compared to its commercial/bespoke brethren. To give just one example, consider multi-tenancy/QoS. Very few OSS distributed filesystems or object stores even seem to have heard of the concept, and those few barely scratch the surface.
- montjoy 7y agoCan you give a better example of what you mean? There are plenty of multi-tenancy file systems. Do you mean QoS by user or over the network?
- notacoward 7y ago> There are plenty of multi-tenancy file systems Name one. What I mean by multi-tenant is that the namespace, security space, capacity quota and I/O quota are fully isolated and managed at the storage-system API, not via other facilities such as cgroups which aren't even applicable beyond a single-host level. Each tenant gets something that looks like a private service with predictable limits (appropriate for an SLA) regardless of what other tenants are doing, despite being on shared infrastructure. Commercial vendors like NetApp and all the "hyperconverged" crowd have support for this kind of isolation at the cluster level, as do some bespoke storage systems such as the one I work on at Facebook, but in the open-source world? Nada.
- montjoy 7y agoOk sure in that context I can’t think of any. The closest thing I know of (with a limited understanding of what you mean) is NFS4.2.