Re: [tlug] MobileFS: Good or Bad?

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2008-09-09 08:05 +0200 (Tue), Christian Horn wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:39:40PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > 
> >     http://www.danga.com/mogilefs/
> >     [distributed filesystem]
> 
> Canonical idea for this kind of needs is using OpenAFS, in what
> areas does mogilefs look better?

They're entirely different things for entirely different purposes.

AFS is designed to emulate a traditional filesystem, albeit with only
file-grained locking. It's complex, slow and relatively unreliable. (If
a server holding a file goes down, you have no access to it until the
server comes back up.)

MogileFS is essentially a giant distributed web server. It's simple,
can serve massive amounts of content very quickly from relatively small
servers, and it deals with file replication. If you lose a node, you can
ignore it, or just add new empty node to the cluster, or whatever. It
also has its own API, and makes no attempt to provide anything like a
POSIX filesystem API.

Despite the name, MogileFS should not be thought of as anything like
FFS, ext2fs, NFS, or AFS.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com