Apache Ozone is an alternative for an object store running on top of Hadoop. Maybe someone who has experience running this in a production environment can comment on it.
Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
61–70 of 147 posts
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
you might be interested in https://github.com/perkeep/perkeep
Perkeep has (at least until last I checked it) the very interesting property of being completely impossible for me to make heads or tails of while also looking extremely interesting and useful. So in the hope of triggering someone to give me the missing link (maybe even a hyperlink) for me to understand it, here is a the situation: I'm a SW dev that also have done a lot of sysadmin work. Yes, I have managed to instal…
I agree 100%
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
you might be interested in https://github.com/perkeep/perkeep
Perkeep has (at least until last I checked it) the very interesting property of being completely impossible for me to make heads or tails of while also looking extremely interesting and useful. So in the hope of triggering someone to give me the missing link (maybe even a hyperlink) for me to understand it, here is a the situation: I'm a SW dev that also have done a lot of sysadmin work. Yes, I have managed to instal…
Perkeep is such a cool, interesting concept, but it seems like it's on life-support.
If I'm not mistaken, it used to be funded by creator Brad Fitz, who could afford to hire a full-time developer on his Google salary, but that time has sadly passed.
It suffers from having so many cool use-cases that it struggles to find a balance in presentation.
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#64There's also OpenStack Swift.
I believe OpenStack Swift in particular is known to work well in some large organizations [1], NVIDIA is one of those and also invested in its maintenance [2].
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1DunJM1zoc 2. https://platform.swiftstack.com/docs/
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#65I have used Garage for a long time. It's great, but the AWS sigv4 protocol for accessing it is just frustrating. Why can't I just send my API key as a header? I don't need the full AWS SDK to get and put files, and the AWS sigv4 is a ton of extra complexity to add to my projects. I don't care about the "security benefits" of AWS sigv4. I hope the authors consider a different authentication scheme so I can recommend G…
It makes sense to tap into the existing ecosystem of AWS S3-compatible clients.
Plain HTTP (as in curl without any extra headers) is already an S3-compatible client.
If this 'Garage' doesn't support the plain HTTP use case then it isn't S3 compatible.
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
you might be interested in https://github.com/perkeep/perkeep
Perkeep has (at least until last I checked it) the very interesting property of being completely impossible for me to make heads or tails of while also looking extremely interesting and useful. So in the hope of triggering someone to give me the missing link (maybe even a hyperlink) for me to understand it, here is a the situation: I'm a SW dev that also have done a lot of sysadmin work. Yes, I have managed to instal…
Beside personal photo store, I use the storage part for file store at work (basically, indexing is off), with a simplifying wrapper for upload/download: github.com/tgulacsi/camproxy
With the adaptive block hashing (varying block sizes), it beats gzip for compression.
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#67Whats the motivation behind project like this one? We got ceph, minio, seaweedfs ... and a dozen of others. I am genuinly curious what is the goal here?
Minio assumes each node has identical hardware. Garage is designed for use-cases like self-hosting, where nodes are not expected to have identical hardware.
Minio doesn't, it has bucket replication and it works okay.
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#68I don’t understand why everyone wants to replicate AWS APIs for things that are not AWS. S3 is a horrible interface with a terrible lack of features. It’s just file storage without any of the benefits of a file syste - no metadata, no directory structures, no ability to search, sort, or filter. Combine that with high latency network file access and an overly verbose API. You literally have a bucket for storing files,…
I use CephFS.
Blob storage is easier than POSIX file systems:
You have server-client state. The concept of opened files, directories, and their states. Locks. The ability for multiple writers to write to the same file while still providing POSIX guarantees.
All of those need to correctly handle failure of both the client and the server.
CephFS implements that with a Metadata server that has lots of logica and needs plenty of RAM.
A distributed file system like CephFS is more convenient than S3 in multiple ways, and I agree it's preferable for most use cases. But it's undoubtedly more complex to build.
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#69I don’t understand why everyone wants to replicate AWS APIs for things that are not AWS. S3 is a horrible interface with a terrible lack of features. It’s just file storage without any of the benefits of a file syste - no metadata, no directory structures, no ability to search, sort, or filter. Combine that with high latency network file access and an overly verbose API. You literally have a bucket for storing files,…
Because at this point it's a well known API. I bet people want to recreate AWS without the Amazon part, and so this is for them. Which, to your point, makes no sense because as you rightly point out, people use S3 because of the Amazon services and ecosystem it is integrated with - not at all because it is "good tech"
S3 is just HTTP. There isn't really an ecosystem for S3, unless you just mean all the existing http clients.
Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
S3 was the second AWS service, behind SQS, and saw rapid adoption which cannot be explained by integration with services introduced later.
Storage is generally sticky but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that reason because it might explain why anything would fail to displace it; a bunch of software is written against S3 and the entire ecosystem around it is quite rich. It doesn’t explain the initial popularity but does explain stickiness. Initial popularity was because it was the first good REST API to do cloud storage AND the price was super reasonab…
Oh, I’m definitely not saying integration or compatibility have nothing to do with it - only that “horrible interface with a terrible lack of features” seems impossible to reconcile with its immense popularity.