Consider MooseFS for Nethserver 8

Feature
21

@pike

The issue / use-case is distributed filesystems.

These do NOT need ANY interaction with the system, the system does not use this space.

Most programmers, if not programming a system tool, will use the OS standard calls for ANY file system operation (eg copying, moving, creating, opening, editing, deleting a file). These are always the same, no matter which file system is used.
So: no matter if ext4, btrfs, xfs, zfs is used, most operations will be standard system calls, the same for ALL filesystems…

At the moment, ALL so called “standard” file systems are NOT “distributed”.

If a SME company has 2-3 sites, like I have a few of those type of clients.

With NethServer, the main site will have direct access for eg Windows Clients.The other two sites would have to access via (very slow) WAN connections over VPN.

An iBay using MooseFS, mounted as usual under /var/lib/nethserver/ibay/moosefs, could be synched to a Raspberry PI, a NAS, another NethServer, and users at those sites could also have fast, direct access.
The sync (Delta-Sync) would be from MooseFS to MooseFS, one of them running as “master”.

Nextcloud would allow client-sync, but with 10 clients at one site, it’s MUCH better if the there is only one sync in the background for ALL users at site B. NextCloud would have 10 different sync operations ongoing… (Danger of Race-Condition).

Also good to note:

Most Devs do not go into system operations. These are “reserved” for Kernel-Coders or Tweakers… :slight_smile:

Here on NethServer forum, I’d call @Stephdl a top coder. However, I may be mistaken, but I do not think he’s ever dabbled into filesystem coding…

My 2 cents
Andy

1 Like
22

MooseFS is a distributed filesystem. It runs in userspace, not in the underlying OS. Yes, it can and does run in Docker/Podman. No, it doesn’t “collide with Proxmox, ESXi” etc.

I’m proposing it being a set of containers for NethServer 8, providing storage for backups and also general storage for any other containers that would want to support it.

Little confused as to why the topic was split but okay.

Also, not proposing it be the standard! Just one more option. I strongly disagree that this is something that is far from the goals of NS8, especially since this is… also distro-agnostic, and never wasn’t.

3 Likes
24

Maybe it was not straight into my words, my bad. The competition is between
NS8 ↔ ProxMox ↔ ESXi ↔ Xen
MooseFS might be a nice addition but…

personal thoughs on since here

Great features! But

Currently is. Between two options as far as I can remember. Fedora and Debian.
Will it be at the end of development process? Not sure if the team is willing to answer now.

Filesystem default and support is most distro choice. The part closer to the system.
MooseFS is already available for both current options? Great! It’s old enough to be considered as reliable and “user ready”, at least for wanna-be sysadmins.

This will lead to an adoption from NethServer 8? I don’t think so.
Adding this kind of dependance (SPOF?) for NS8 is a quite brave move to take. Not only managing two different distro (at least, currently) but also a requirement for something that the distro underlying don’t consider essential enough for using it as default FS.
Can dev team decide to adopt it? Their call, here from the gallery seems a really brave one. Maybe a bit too much, considered the architectural change of the distro that’s going to happen.

You think it’s a great idea? Go for it!, not only advocating on the community, but also giving the FS a… test installation.
From the documentation you can still attach a MooseFS filesystem into the “designed” mountpoint for NS8 containares, and use your test installation as an extremely valuable info source for the project! :slight_smile:
But again… still a personal idea :wink:

25

I’m extremely confused as to what you think I’m talking about. I’ve read and re-read your reply and I can’t figure it out.

Perhaps you could DM me your issue and we can figure it out instead of cluttering this thread further.

Are you saying NethServer is/should become competition for Proxmox/ESXi etc? That would be news to me, and not what I’m proposing.

Are you saying MooseFS would be shared storage for the entire system? Also not what I’m proposing.

I’m suggesting it as containers running on the host system, fitting with the existing proposed model of how Neth works, which can optionally be mounted inside containers and used inside containers. I’m not sure how it can be clearer.

We could start over and just say “think of it as an application rather than a filesystem”.

4 Likes
26

I am saing that IMHO it is. Never intendet that you were proposing for that.

IDK if it’s possible.
I mean… I am aware than in userspace of the containers filesystems could be mounted. But questions arises me…
Is it safe? The hosted application should access to the FS of the “hardware” for mounting the partition. Expanding boundaries?
Is it useful? MooseFS maybe could be a such powerful tool for snapshots the instances before run some errands that could hurt a lot. But inside the “hosted” application, which advantages could be gained? (Except specific user cases… willing to share? :wink: )
Should be considered as standard? I mean… why bother to have such a powerful tool only inside some hosted apps?

IMHO… I don’t feel useful to have such a powerful tool for the “guest” instead for the “host”. I would not use ZFS for hosted systems if I could, unless a specific need.

It’s probably my biggest last of knowledge for so “high level/feature” filesystem kind, but I cannot feel a filesystem at the same level of a database.
The first is the ground you build things. The second one is the walls built on ground. Inside other things (data, software, ERP whatever) lives…

27

Where are you leaving Truenas Scale.
that is why Nethserver needs to offer a solution that those other systems can not, or would not offer.