How does it compare to ObjectiveFS (a commercial offering) and S3QL (now abandoned)?
Would JuiceFS be suitable for a handful of servers (and mobile laptops) with connection latencies anywhere from 5-150ms accessing the same file system? Workload is basic home directory stuff (lots of tiny files, few large ones, read-heavy, write-rarely). I wonder about the operational complexity in running the metadata server (yet another thing to manage unless outsourced); if it goes down, do all fs operations block/fail until it's back up?
I'm looking for something like the now-abandoned s3ql file system but one that allows multiple hosts to mount the same volume and have reads/writes "just work" without conflicts.
If you have good network, JuiceFS is the thing you are looking for. Multiple hosts can mount the same volume and it just works without conflicts.
If the network is slow and unreliable, the experience will be bad, all fs operations will be blocked if meta server is not available, since JuiceFS is a CP system.
Comparing to ObjectiveFS, the big difference is that JuiceFS has faster metadata engine (comparing to S3), so it can provide low latency access AND strong consistency.
How does it compare to ObjectiveFS (a commercial offering) and S3QL (now abandoned)?
Would JuiceFS be suitable for a handful of servers (and mobile laptops) with connection latencies anywhere from 5-150ms accessing the same file system? Workload is basic home directory stuff (lots of tiny files, few large ones, read-heavy, write-rarely). I wonder about the operational complexity in running the metadata server (yet another thing to manage unless outsourced); if it goes down, do all fs operations block/fail until it's back up?
I'm looking for something like the now-abandoned s3ql file system but one that allows multiple hosts to mount the same volume and have reads/writes "just work" without conflicts.
If you have good network, JuiceFS is the thing you are looking for. Multiple hosts can mount the same volume and it just works without conflicts.
If the network is slow and unreliable, the experience will be bad, all fs operations will be blocked if meta server is not available, since JuiceFS is a CP system.
Comparing JuiceFS to S3QL [1] https://juicefs.com/docs/community/comparison/juicefs_vs_s3q...
Comparing to ObjectiveFS, the big difference is that JuiceFS has faster metadata engine (comparing to S3), so it can provide low latency access AND strong consistency.