Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What is best distributed fault-tolerant file systems free for commercial use, on Windows or Linux?

Basically I need infinite number of nodes, easy adding each node, be sure that data are safe, even if some node or hard drive on this node are faulty. Parallel access if good but not critical, fault-tolerance is more critical.

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Dave M, RedGrittyBrick, slhck Aug 7 '12 at 13:47

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

up vote 1 down vote accepted

MogileFS looks like a good option:

MogileFS is our open source distributed filesystem. Its properties and features include:

  • Application level -- no special kernel modules required.
  • No single point of failure -- all three components of a MogileFS setup (storage nodes, trackers, and the tracker's database(s)) can be run on multiple machines, so there's no single point of failure. (you can run trackers on the same machines as storage nodes, too, so you don't need 4 machines...) A minimum of 2 machines is recommended.
  • Automatic file replication -- files, based on their "class", are automatically replicated between enough different storage nodes as to satisfy the minimum replica count as requested by their class. For instance, for a photo hosting site you can make original JPEGs have a minimum replica count of 3, but thumbnails and scaled versions only have a replica count of 1 or 2. If you lose the only copy of a thumbnail, the application can just rebuild it. In this way, MogileFS (without RAID) can save money on disks that would otherwise be storing multiple copies of data unnecessarily.
  • "Better than RAID" -- in a non-SAN RAID setup, the disks are redundant, but the host isn't. If you lose the entire machine, the files are inaccessible. MogileFS replicates the files between devices which are on different hosts, so files are always available.
  • Flat Namespace -- Files are identified by named keys in a flat, global namespace. You can create as many namespaces as you'd like, so multiple applications with potentially conflicting keys can run on the same MogileFS installation.
  • Shared-Nothing -- MogileFS doesn't depend on a pricey SAN with shared disks. Every machine maintains its own local disks.
  • No RAID required -- Local disks on MogileFS storage nodes can be in a RAID, or not. It's cheaper not to, as RAID doesn't buy you any safety that MogileFS doesn't already provide.
  • Local filesystem agnostic -- Local disks on MogileFS storage nodes can be formatted with your filesystem of choice (ext3, XFS, etc..). MogileFS does its own internal directory hashing so it doesn't hit filesystem limits such as "max files per directory" or "max directories per directory". Use what you're comfortable with.
share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .