|
|
|
|
|
by rostayob
269 days ago
|
|
(Disclaimer: I'm one of the authors of TernFS and while we evaluated Ceph I am not intimately familiar with it) Main factors: * Ceph stores both metadata and file contents using the same object store (RADOS). TernFS uses a specialized database for metadata which takes advantage of various properties of our datasets (immutable files, few moves between directories, etc.). * While Ceph is capable of storing PBs, we currently store ~600PBs on a single TernFS deployment. Last time we checked this would be an order of magnitude more than even very large Ceph deployments. * More generally, we wanted a system that we knew we could easily adapt to our needs and more importantly quickly fix when something went wrong, and we estimated that building out something new rather than adapting Ceph (or some other open source solution) would be less costly overall. |
|