6 ms·

Whenever you introduce a new solution into a problem space that already has plenty of options, you are obligated to state why your (new) solution is needed in t

by 0x008 6y ago

Whenever you introduce a new solution into a problem space that already has plenty of options, you are obligated to state why your (new) solution is needed in the first place, IMO. They did it well: > Most other distributed file systems seem more complicated than necessary. > SeaweedFS is meant to be fast and simple, in both setup and operation. If you do not understand how it works when you reach here, we've failed! Please raise an issue with any questions or update this file with clarifications. https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs#compared-to-other-file-systems https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs#compared-to-other-fil... However, since I never had to touch hdfs after installing it in the first place, I wonder what the difficulties in operation are, that they tried to overcome here?

rawoke083600 6y ago
>Whenever you introduce a new solution into a problem space that already has plenty of options, you are obligated to state why your (new) solution is needed in the first place, IMO. Agreed ! I'm just very glad, they didn't use the word "lightweight", it's a pet irritation of mine, when ppl "advertise" their software as "lightweight" ! The "first few" versions are always "lightweight" once they included all the bug fixes and corner cases of the other solutions over the next few releases, they seldom stay "lightweight" :/
- chrislusf 6y ago
  Agree! Yet I do try very hard to keep each layer separate from each other. So each layer can be "lightweight". :)
  - rawoke083600 6y ago
    Nooooo ! :D
threeseed 6y ago
HDFS famously suffers from a major "small files" issue where if you have lots of files that are less than the block size you i.e. 64MB you will have production instabilities due to excessive namenode memory, read/write performance and disk efficiency. Also when you lose datanodes you will need to rebalance the data which SeaweedFS apparently does not need to do.
- chrislusf 6y ago
  In SeaweedFS, rebalancing data is via admin commands. The data nodes only act as just as storage devices.

by 0x008 6y ago

rawoke083600 6y ago

>Whenever you introduce a new solution into a problem space that already has plenty of options, you are obligated to state why your (new) solution is needed in the first place, IMO. Agreed ! I'm just very glad, they didn't use the word "lightweight", it's a pet irritation of mine, when ppl "advertise" their software as "lightweight" ! The "first few" versions are always "lightweight" once they included all the bug fixes and corner cases of the other solutions over the next few releases, they seldom stay "lightweight" :/

chrislusf 6y ago
Agree! Yet I do try very hard to keep each layer separate from each other. So each layer can be "lightweight". :)
- rawoke083600 6y ago
  Nooooo ! :D

threeseed 6y ago

HDFS famously suffers from a major "small files" issue where if you have lots of files that are less than the block size you i.e. 64MB you will have production instabilities due to excessive namenode memory, read/write performance and disk efficiency. Also when you lose datanodes you will need to rebalance the data which SeaweedFS apparently does not need to do.

chrislusf 6y ago
In SeaweedFS, rebalancing data is via admin commands. The data nodes only act as just as storage devices.