
LizardFS – Reliable and Scalable Distributed File System - turrini
https://github.com/lizardfs/lizardfs
======
sciurus
This is a fork of [http://www.moosefs.org/](http://www.moosefs.org/)

~~~
throwaway13337
I don't see what lizard does that moose doesn't.

Is this just a re-branding of moose in hopes to sell consulting for it?

It seems that's the goal: [https://lizardfs.com/](https://lizardfs.com/)

------
GauntletWizard
This is interesting, especially the native windows client, but it's based on
the same tired architecture as HDFS, and has all the same limitations.

1) Single Master for Metadata

One of the biggest weaknesses in this model is that you can only scale the
master so far. For metadata responses to be snappy, everything in your working
set has to fit in RAM. That imposes hard limits on your number of files; 100M
is achievable, 1B can even be done, but more than that and you're in for hurt.

2) Chunkserver to chunkserver replication

As the moosefs write diagram shows, you're waiting for chunkservers to walk a
linear tree, and you get the slowest performance of each one. Which, as it
turns out, is on average pretty bad. If you have a 99th percentile latency of
10x your average, you lose 20% of your speed with three replicas. Not to
mention the fact that your 'single point of failure' is actually any of the
three of those chunkservers, with a long retry stall if one of them errors.
LizardFS supports a xor mode, so it may be avoiding this by having clients
talk to more than one chunkserver directly. Combined with proper queueing and
retry logic, this reduces the effect of the long tail significantly.

------
techdragon
Last time I investigated about a year ago... I saw some MAJOR as in "DO NOT
USE, UNSAFE, WARNING, DANGER WILL ROBINSON", issues in this project... Silent
data loss/corruption type stuff, and I did not see sufficient activity on a
project of this complexity to make me feel at all comfortable using it.

------
gravypod
I've used tahoe lafs before, but not many other distributed file systems.

There doesn't seem to be much information provided in this link, and their
website doesn't help much either. Does LizardFS do full end to end encryption
too? That's one of the more important things to me.

~~~
nickpsecurity
The MooseFS reference will help you out:

[http://www.moosefs.org/](http://www.moosefs.org/)

You might also find this list useful:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Distribut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Distributed_fault-
tolerant_file_systems)

------
sj4nz
So, no reasoning for a fork? What was the itch? Just to use GPLv3 instead of
GPLv2, can GPL be "switched" just like that?

~~~
kiiski
Looking at the MooseFS source files, I don't think they can. The license
header of the files says:

    
    
       /* ...
        * MooseFS is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
        * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        * the Free Software Foundation, version 2 (only).
        * ... 
        */

------
acd
I´ve used MooseFS which LizardFS is based upon and its very stable in
production!

------
bryanlarsen
Does LizardFS support atomic rename?

