Alex
1c0ba930b8
This PR should be merged after the new website is deployed. - [x] Rename files - [x] Add front matter section to all `.md` files in the book (necessary for Zola) - [x] Change all internal links to use Zola's linking system that checks broken links - [x] Some updates to documentation contents and organization Co-authored-by: Alex Auvolat <alex@adnab.me> Reviewed-on: Deuxfleurs/garage#213 Co-authored-by: Alex <alex@adnab.me> Co-committed-by: Alex <alex@adnab.me>
80 lines
5.9 KiB
Markdown
80 lines
5.9 KiB
Markdown
+++
|
|
title = "Related work"
|
|
weight = 15
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Data storage is critical: it can lead to data loss if done badly and/or on hardware failure.
|
|
Filesystems + RAID can help on a single machine but a machine failure can put the whole storage offline.
|
|
Moreover, it put a hard limit on scalability. Often this limit can be pushed back far away by buying expensive machines.
|
|
But here we consider non specialized off the shelf machines that can be as low powered and subject to failures as a raspberry pi.
|
|
|
|
Distributed storage may help to solve both availability and scalability problems on these machines.
|
|
Many solutions were proposed, they can be categorized as block storage, file storage and object storage depending on the abstraction they provide.
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
Block storage is the most low level one, it's like exposing your raw hard drive over the network.
|
|
It requires very low latencies and stable network, that are often dedicated.
|
|
However it provides disk devices that can be manipulated by the operating system with the less constraints: it can be partitioned with any filesystem, meaning that it supports even the most exotic features.
|
|
We can cite [iSCSI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISCSI) or [Fibre Channel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_Channel).
|
|
Openstack Cinder proxy previous solution to provide an uniform API.
|
|
|
|
File storage provides a higher abstraction, they are one filesystem among others, which means they don't necessarily have all the exotic features of every filesystem.
|
|
Often, they relax some POSIX constraints while many applications will still be compatible without any modification.
|
|
As an example, we are able to run MariaDB (very slowly) over GlusterFS...
|
|
We can also mention CephFS (read [RADOS](https://doi.org/10.1145/1374596.1374606) whitepaper [[pdf](https://ceph.com/assets/pdfs/weil-rados-pdsw07.pdf)]), Lustre, LizardFS, MooseFS, etc.
|
|
OpenStack Manila proxy previous solutions to provide an uniform API.
|
|
|
|
Finally object storages provide the highest level abstraction.
|
|
They are the testimony that the POSIX filesystem API is not adapted to distributed filesystems.
|
|
Especially, the strong concistency has been dropped in favor of eventual consistency which is way more convenient and powerful in presence of high latencies and unreliability.
|
|
We often read about S3 that pioneered the concept that it's a filesystem for the WAN.
|
|
Applications must be adapted to work for the desired object storage service.
|
|
Today, the S3 HTTP REST API acts as a standard in the industry.
|
|
However, Amazon S3 source code is not open but alternatives were proposed.
|
|
We identified Minio, Pithos, Swift and Ceph.
|
|
Minio/Ceph enforces a total order, so properties similar to a (relaxed) filesystem.
|
|
Swift and Pithos are probably the most similar to AWS S3 with their consistent hashing ring.
|
|
However Pithos is not maintained anymore. More precisely the company that published Pithos version 1 has developped a second version 2 but has not open sourced it.
|
|
Some tests conducted by the [ACIDES project](https://acides.org/) have shown that Openstack Swift consumes way more resources (CPU+RAM) that we can afford. Furthermore, people developing Swift have not designed their software for geo-distribution.
|
|
|
|
There were many attempts in research too. I am only thinking to [LBFS](https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/lbfs:sosp01/lbfs.pdf) that was used as a basis for Seafile. But none of them have been effectively implemented yet.
|
|
|
|
## Existing software
|
|
|
|
**[MinIO](https://min.io/):** MinIO shares our *Self-contained & lightweight* goal but selected two of our non-goals: *Storage optimizations* through erasure coding and *POSIX/Filesystem compatibility* through strong consistency.
|
|
However, by pursuing these two non-goals, MinIO do not reach our desirable properties.
|
|
Firstly, it fails on the *Simple* property: due to the erasure coding, MinIO has severe limitations on how drives can be added or deleted from a cluster.
|
|
Secondly, it fails on the *Internet enabled* property: due to its strong consistency, MinIO is latency sensitive.
|
|
Furthermore, MinIO has no knowledge of "sites" and thus can not distribute data to minimize the failure of a given site.
|
|
|
|
**[Openstack Swift](https://docs.openstack.org/swift/latest/):**
|
|
OpenStack Swift at least fails on the *Self-contained & lightweight* goal.
|
|
Starting it requires around 8GB of RAM, which is too much especially in an hyperconverged infrastructure.
|
|
We also do not classify Swift as *Simple*.
|
|
|
|
**[Ceph](https://ceph.io/ceph-storage/object-storage/):**
|
|
This review holds for the whole Ceph stack, including the RADOS paper, Ceph Object Storage module, the RADOS Gateway, etc.
|
|
At its core, Ceph has been designed to provide *POSIX/Filesystem compatibility* which requires strong consistency, which in turn
|
|
makes Ceph latency-sensitive and fails our *Internet enabled* goal.
|
|
Due to its industry oriented design, Ceph is also far from being *Simple* to operate and from being *Self-contained & lightweight* which makes it hard to integrate it in an hyperconverged infrastructure.
|
|
In a certain way, Ceph and MinIO are closer together than they are from Garage or OpenStack Swift.
|
|
|
|
**[Pithos](https://github.com/exoscale/pithos):**
|
|
Pithos has been abandonned and should probably not used yet, in the following we explain why we did not pick their design.
|
|
Pithos was relying as a S3 proxy in front of Cassandra (and was working with Scylla DB too).
|
|
From its designers' mouth, storing data in Cassandra has shown its limitations justifying the project abandonment.
|
|
They built a closed-source version 2 that does not store blobs in the database (only metadata) but did not communicate further on it.
|
|
We considered there v2's design but concluded that it does not fit both our *Self-contained & lightweight* and *Simple* properties. It makes the development, the deployment and the operations more complicated while reducing the flexibility.
|
|
|
|
**[Riak CS](https://docs.riak.com/riak/cs/2.1.1/index.html):**
|
|
*Not written yet*
|
|
|
|
**[IPFS](https://ipfs.io/):**
|
|
*Not written yet*
|
|
|
|
## Specific research papers
|
|
|
|
*Not yet written*
|