3 ms·
At first I was wondering how this was different from something like Ceph or GlusterFS. Looks like this isn't meant to be used on a LAN to squeeze out every bit
by arjvik 4y ago
At first I was wondering how this was different from something like Ceph or GlusterFS.
Looks like this isn't meant to be used on a LAN to squeeze out every bit of performance, but rather to work across hosts on different local networks over the whole internet (even passing through NATs) in a somewhat distributed fashion. Cool!
- ephimetheus 4y agoExactly. This is the software delivery mechanism for the LHC experiments. It’s a read only globally distributed (sort of) POSIX filesystem. We use it in ATLAS to deploy both tagged releases and nightly builds. These can be about 100GB in size each. The releases are used for production jobs across the worldwide grid, while the nightlies are used as development targets for individual developers.
- pengaru 4y agoErm, it's not even a read-write filesystem. It appears to simply be a read-only POSIX-fs interface to Merkle-encapsulated bits distributed via http. Ceph and Gluster are completely different animals.
- zcw100 4y agoIt sounds more like IPFS
- tempay 4y agoThe biggest thing is that it’s read-only[1] and aims for high performance massively distributed reads (millions of clients). [1] Though for publishing files you have have many concurrent transactions open from different machines so long as they lock unique paths.
- avidphantasm 4y agoSounds like a read-only version of AFS [1], which had a global namespace and was used for software distribution as well as data sharing/collaboration. If you narrow the use case to software distribution, I suppose read only is a reasonable trade off if it enables higher performance. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_File_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_File_System