| ▲ | rfoo 6 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
IMO they serve similar at a glance, but actually very different use cases. SeaweedFS is more about amazing small object read performance because you effectively have no metadata to query to read an object. You just distribute volume id, file id (+cookie) to clients. 3FS is less extreme in this, supports actual POSIX interface, and isn't particularly good at how fast you can open() files. On the other hand, it shards files into smaller (e.g. 512KiB) chunks, demands RDMA NICs and makes reading randomly from large files scary fast [0]. If your dataset is immutable you can emulate what SeaweedFS does, but if it isn't then SeaweedFS is better. [0] By scary fast I mean being able to completely saturate 12 PCIe Gen 4 NVMe SSD at 4K random reads on a single storage server and you can horizontally scale that. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jszymborski 6 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I wonder how close to something like 3FS you can get by mounting SeaweedFS with S3FS, which mounts using FUSE. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||