[SATLUG] Amazon Web Services (AWS) Simple Storage Service (S3)...

[Justizin]

On 11/6/06, K. Spoon <kell at spoonix.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 10:57:44AM -0600, John Pappas wrote:
> > Add one downside: it is still (most likely) a single spindle.  AFAIK S3
> > uses "google-esque" storage - IE lots of commodity hardware EXPECTED to
> > fail regularly, so it it stored redundantly to counter fragile node
> > failure.
>
> If only those gimps would release GoogleFS...  :(
>
> And while it's not the same, you could probably rig up enough of a
> safety net with RAID and multiple boxes in different locations to get
> by.

The trick is to guarantee that three or more copies of anything exist
at a given time.  Google hasn't been able to do this without
clustering in the application layer, essentially, or writing all of
their apps to work within the construct of 64MB block size.

Lustre is not bad, but also has weaknesses, esp that it implements
things like POSIX XATTR, but does not work on native / local
filesystems such as reiserfs and xfs which also support them, so it
stores them in some nonstandard way.  It's not much better than ZODB
in regards to metadata.

-- 
Justizin, Independent Interactivity Architect
ACM SIGGRAPH SysMgr, Reporter
http://www.siggraph.org/