3 ms·
I really wonder how this compares to the Tahoe LAFS (least authority file system) which was built for similar reasons and has been around a lot longer: https:/
by SEJeff 13y ago
I really wonder how this compares to the Tahoe LAFS (least authority file system) which was built for similar reasons and has been around a lot longer:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs
And in specific:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/docs/about.rst https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/docs/ab...
Or the Redhat sponsored HekaFS:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/HekaFS?rd=Features/CloudFS https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/HekaFS?rd=Features/C...
- wmf 13y agoI think Ori is more similar to Dropbox or BitTorrent Sync in the sense that it focuses on creating (nearly) full replicas on a fairly small number of machines with P2P sync between them. The Ori paper explicitly says disk space is cheap, which motivates their decision to store full replicas and history. It's really a quite different design than client-server cluster filesystems like Tahoe, Gluster/HekaFS, Ceph, HDFS, pNFS, etc. I think Ori is confusing people by calling itself a file system instead of a sync/backup system. Sure, it's implemented using FUSE, but it doesn't behave like a traditional network file system.
- theonewolf 13y agoI think it's OK being a file system. All a fs is really is a specialized key-value store. Redis is a file system.