3 ms·
No this was a misunderstanding I said if you need (concurrency control/transaction and index) use a real database not a filesystem, since it’s the whole reason
by skyde 6y ago
No this was a misunderstanding I said if you need (concurrency control/transaction and index) use a real database not a filesystem, since it’s the whole reason database exist.
But if you don’t need it there are plenty of good distributed file system that will not eat your data.
- lmm 6y ago> No this was a misunderstanding I said if you need (concurrency control/transaction and index) use a real database not a filesystem, since it’s the whole reason database exist. Just because something is designed for x doesn't mean it's any good at x. Kafka is also designed for handling concurrent events, and it's significantly better at it. > But if you don’t need it there are plenty of good distributed file system that will not eat your data. There really aren't any distributed filesystems that are nice to work with. S3 isn't a full filesystem and your writes take a while before they're visible in your reads, HDFS isn't a full filesystem and can be slow to failover, AFS has generally weird performance and locks up every so often. If your needs are simple then anything will work, including distributed filesystems, but it's very rare that a distributed filesystem is an actively good choice, IME.