289
edits
Difference between revisions of "Mesh/MeshApps"
changed file system details
Jwentwistle (talk | contribs) (added more file system details) |
Jwentwistle (talk | contribs) (changed file system details) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* [http://opensfs.org/lustre/ Lustre] - Used by sixty percent of the top 100 websites. | * [http://opensfs.org/lustre/ Lustre] - Used by sixty percent of the top 100 websites. | ||
*: Performance: Amazingly fast! I can assert that Lustre can serve a lot of streams and that encoding speed is not affected by accessing files via Lustre. | *: Performance: Amazingly fast! I can assert that Lustre can serve a lot of streams and that encoding speed is not affected by accessing files via Lustre. | ||
*: POXIS compatibility: Very good!. No need to modify applications to use luster. | *: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX POXIS] compatibility: Very good!. No need to modify applications to use luster. | ||
*: Replication, Load Balancing and Fail Over: Very bad!. For replication load balancing we and fail over we need to rely on other software such as virtual IPs and DRDB. | *: Replication, Load Balancing and Fail Over: Very bad!. For replication load balancing we and fail over we need to rely on other software such as virtual IPs and DRDB. | ||
*: Installation: The worst!. Impossible to install by mere mortals. Requires a very specific combination of kernel, lustre patches and tweaks to get it working. And current luster patches usually work with old kernels that are incompatible with new hardware/software. | *: Installation: The worst!. Impossible to install by mere mortals. Requires a very specific combination of kernel, lustre patches and tweaks to get it working. And current luster patches usually work with old kernels that are incompatible with new hardware/software. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* [https://code.google.com/p/mogilefs/ MogileFS] | * [https://code.google.com/p/mogilefs/ MogileFS] | ||
*: Performance: Good for small files but not usable for medium to large files. This is mostly due to HTTP overhead since all files are send/receive via HTTP requests that encode all data in base64 adding a 33% overhead to each file. | *: Performance: Good for small files but not usable for medium to large files. This is mostly due to HTTP overhead since all files are send/receive via HTTP requests that encode all data in base64 adding a 33% overhead to each file. | ||
*: | *: POXIS compatibility: Non existent. All applications require to be modified to use MogileFS that renders it useless for streaming/encoding since most streaming servers and encoding tools do not understand the protocol. | ||
*: Replication and failover out of the box and load balancing can be implemented in the application by accessing more than one tracker at a time. | *: Replication and failover out of the box and load balancing can be implemented in the application by accessing more than one tracker at a time. | ||
*: Installation: Relatively easy and ready to use packages exist in most distributions. The only difficulty I found was setting the database master-slave to eliminate the single point of failure. | *: Installation: Relatively easy and ready to use packages exist in most distributions. The only difficulty I found was setting the database master-slave to eliminate the single point of failure. | ||