4 ms·
Some differentiators that aren't immediately obvious in the comparison: > SeaweedFS Filer metadata store can be any well-known and proven data stores, e.g., Ca
by 3np 6y ago
Some differentiators that aren't immediately obvious in the comparison:
> SeaweedFS Filer metadata store can be any well-known and proven data stores, e.g., Cassandra, Mongodb, Redis, Elastic Search, MySql, Postgres, MemSql, TiDB, CockroachDB, Etcd etc, and is easy to customized.
I'm not very familiar with other DFS's but at the very least glusterfs stores metadata as xattrs on an underlying filesystem and so has no need of an external data store.
Also, SeaweedFS has a "master" server (single centralized with failover to secondary) and "volume servers" (responsible for data).
- chrislusf 6y agoIn SeaweedFS both metadata and data are portable. You can move metadata to any faster scalable data store. And/or move the data to any cheaper/faster/larger storage, in cloud or in your garage.
- gbrits 6y agoCurrently using Minio which is a relative success. However as part of quality checks we're using a lot 'listObjectsV2' S3-calls to check for gaps in our data, which is pretty slow. When using SeadweedFS plus, say, a Filer meta-data store based on Redis, this would presumably be faster?
- chrislusf 6y agoOf course you can go with faster filer stores. Default filer store would be enough for millions of files. It is the same speed as a common file listing. Actually I do not understand why MinIO is slow here.
- 3np 6y agoSure. Not really saying one is better than the other; SeaweedFS approach allows you flexibility with these decisions and offloading, GlusterFS has no dependencies on additional services to reach its full potential.