Re: [MooseFS-users] about moosefs 2.0

[Andreas H. <ah...@it...>]

Davies Liu <dav...@gm...> writes:

> I had a patch to do similar things (master ha), which uses Raft
> between active masters, and do automatic failure over in client and
> chunk server, but I did not figure out how to publish it. 

Thats the main problem I see with MooseFS. A code drop after a release
is an open source strategy which can be maintaind by Google for Android,
but it's definitely not the way to build a contributing community. Not
that I could contribute to MooseFS or Lizard, since I sorely lack
experience in the rather sensitive field of file system programming.

> MooseFS is great (better than HDFS/GlusterFS/Ceph), but it also has
> some weakness, such as small and not so active community.

I had a talk at "Linuxtage" in Graz 2012{1} to promote MooseFS; talking
also about my short experience with Ceph and my quite extensive usage of
GlusterFS{2}. MooseFS was much better than and is most probably still
better than Ceph in regard of presenting a file system with POSIX
semantics. But Ceph will certainly stay on my list.

Best regards,
Andreas

{1} <https://itp.tugraz.at/~ahi/VO/2012-04_GLT_mooseFS.pdf> 
{2} <https://itp.tugraz.at/~ahi/admin/verteiltesDateisystem.html>
-- 
Andreas Hirczy <ah...@it...>                   http://itp.tugraz.at/~ahi/
Graz University of Technology                        phone: +43/316/873-   8190
Institute of Theoretical and Computational Physics     fax: +43/316/873-10 8190
Petersgasse 16, A-8010 Graz                         mobile: +43/664/859 23 57