I wonder how near-realtime this is. It seems that will dictate the types of applications this will be applicable for.
I currently use Gluster which has its downsides, but is what I consider near-realtime, but with full filesystem features in a nice fuse wrapper. I'd love it if someone would contrast the performance and more of the features.
In the mid-2000s (the "oughts?") I went to my doctor at PAMF with a sore throat and he said he would do a strep test.
I asked him if we would get "real time results?"
He stopped, and looked at me puzzled with a tilted head... "What other kind of time is there?"
Your question is highly reasonable, but I heard a colleague today say that the issue could happen only in a very, very short time period of, say, 2-3 minutes. We routinely work with corner cases of 1-2 ms; so the context is relative :-)
"context is relative" made me smile, thinking "PAMF" is Palo Alto Medical Foundation, but why would anyone in general have the context to understand that
Gluster's performance with metadata heavy workloads is very poor. If you're running files with a high ratio of data:metadata, it works well; if you're running something like a git repo on Gluster it is not a great experience.
It's also thrashing a bit development wise; there's a lot of features being pruned, and I'm a little concerned what its future looks like as Red Hat push harder down the Ceph route, since they're the main source of code contributions to Gluster.
I currently use Gluster which has its downsides, but is what I consider near-realtime, but with full filesystem features in a nice fuse wrapper. I'd love it if someone would contrast the performance and more of the features.