But ceph has the bluestore backend that doesn't go through the file system.
That was the punchline of the post... file systems add too much extra overhead, so they wrote a storage backend without the file system.
File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
11–20 of 37 posts
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing that doesn't actually solve the problem though. A MITM attacker still gets to read and modify all that content.
It’s true. Why, just as I was loading the page, someone replaced all instances of “filesystem” with “butt”! The nerve!
Well they could replace the website with something that makes you part of a botnet. Like so https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21721843
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#13MapR-FS is a great distributed file system, which solves tons of challenges out of the box. E.g. HA, POSIX, NFS, multi tenancy, multi-temprature, co-location, and sexurity.
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume if the owner of the site wanted to redirect all http->https traffic they would do so.
Doing that doesn't actually solve the problem though. A MITM attacker still gets to read and modify all that content.
I don't believe blogspot allows you to turn off http, just (optionally) redirect it to https.
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#15Ceph is awesome, even years ago it was a great Technology. We from croit.io do provide a free software to manage Ceph with ease.
Looks slick, you got downvoted because you dared to promote something but this actually looks like a reasonable value-add. Ceph is one of those things that's just a bit risky for orgs without the subject specific expertise.
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#16Yes it really cannot emphasized enough that the legacy filesystem system interface with it's too-simple 1970s origin and then far, far, far too complex decades of duck tape is a disasterous albatros.
C.f. What linus is saying in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21673372 except turn it around. When an interface has devolved into two sides hating and Postel's-law-enabling each other ad infinitum, and a statement like his is actually justifiable, it's time to close up shop and move on. Nothing good will ever come from POSIX-like storage ever again, and any storage system built around it is doomed to be a mess of too many layers and also too many layer violations. Utter hopelessness.
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#17Something that is not mentioned, though, is that all the years patching existing FS were an education in how a FS works. They likely wouldn’t have had enough knowledge to go balls-out on a new FS at the start. So that 2-year effort was really much longer.
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#18See also the Adrian Colyer discussion (if you have deja vu, this is why, but it's not a repeat of that post): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21460759
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#19Was it Ceph they were using at CERN (ATLAS Project, at least?) they were using some kind of file system federation.
Re: File systems unfit as distributed storage back ends: 10 years of Ceph
#20Yes it really cannot emphasized enough that the legacy filesystem system interface with it's too-simple 1970s origin and then far, far, far too complex decades of duck tape is a disasterous albatros. C.f. What linus is saying in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21673372 except turn it around. When an interface has devolved into two sides hating and Postel's-law-enabling each other ad infinitum, and a statement li…
> Yes it really cannot emphasized enough that the legacy filesystem system interface with it's too-simple 1970s origin and then far, far, far too complex decades of duck tape is a disasterous albatros.
Except that nobody will sign on.
Look at what happened to FreeBSD in the 5.0 timeframe when they reworked their storage layers into GEOM. It was a NIGHTMARE. Most people agreed it needed to be done, but there was an excruciatingly loud segment who complained incessantly. It took some gigantic brass balls and asbestos-lined flamesuits on the part of FreeBSD heavy hitters to drive it through.
If the system in Linux is to get fixed, Linus would probably have to step in and pronounce.