Brian Picciano
3 years ago
parent
f43f742fe0
commit
72378552c3
@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ |
||||
--- |
||||
title: >- |
||||
Evaluation of Network Filesystems |
||||
description: >- |
||||
There can only be one. |
||||
series: nebula |
||||
tags: tech |
||||
--- |
||||
|
||||
It's been a bit since updating my progress on what I've been lately calling the |
||||
"cryptic nebula" project. When I last left off I was working on building the |
||||
[mobile nebula][mobile_nebula] using [nix][nix]. For the moment I gave up on |
||||
that dream, as flutter and nix just _really_ don't get along and I don't want to |
||||
get to distracted on problems that aren't critical to the actual goal. |
||||
|
||||
Instead I'd like to pursue the next critical component of the system, and |
||||
that's a shared filesystem. The use-case I'm ultimately trying to achieve is: |
||||
|
||||
* All hosts communicate with each other via the nebula network. |
||||
* All hosts are personal machines owned by individuals, _not_ cloud VMs. |
||||
* A handful of hosts are always-on, or at least as always-on as can be achieved |
||||
in a home environment. |
||||
* All hosts are able to read/write to a shared filesystem, which is mounted via |
||||
FUSE (or some other mechanism, though I can't imagine what) on their computer. |
||||
* Top-level directories within the shared filesystem can be restricted, so |
||||
that only a certain person (or host) can read/write to them. |
||||
|
||||
What I'm looking for is some kind of network filesystem, of which there are |
||||
_many_. This document will attempt to evaluate all relevant projects and come up |
||||
with the next steps. It may be that no project fits the bill perfectly, and that |
||||
I'm stuck either modifying an existing project to my needs or, if things are |
||||
looking really dire, starting a new project. |
||||
|
||||
The ultimate use-case here is something like a self-hosted, distributed [keybase |
||||
filesystem](https://book.keybase.io/docs/files); somewhere where individuals in |
||||
the cluster can back up their personal projects, share files with each other, |
||||
and possibly even be used as the base layer for more complex applications on |
||||
top. |
||||
|
||||
The individuals involved shouldn't have to deal with configuring their |
||||
distributed FS, either to read from it or add storage resources to it. Ideally |
||||
the FS process can be bundled together with the nebula process and run opaquely; |
||||
the user is just running their "cryptic nebula" process and everything else is |
||||
handled in the background. |
||||
|
||||
## Low Pass Filter |
||||
|
||||
There are some criteria for these projects that I'm not willing to compromise |
||||
on; these criteria will form a low pass filter which, hopefully, will narrow our |
||||
search appreciably. |
||||
|
||||
The network filesystem used by the cryptic nebula must: |
||||
|
||||
* Be able to operate over a nebula network (obviously). |
||||
* Be open-source. The license doesn't matter, as long as the code is available. |
||||
* Run on both Mac and Linux. |
||||
* Not require a third-party to function. |
||||
* Allows for a replication factor of 3. |
||||
* Supports sharding of data (ie each host need not have the entire dataset). |
||||
* Allow for mounting a FUSE filesystem in any hosts' machine to interact with |
||||
the network filesystem. |
||||
* Not run in the JVM, or any other VM which is memory-greedy. |
||||
|
||||
The last may come across as mean, but the reason for it is that I forsee the |
||||
network filesystem client running on users' personal laptops, which cannot be |
||||
assumed to have resources to spare. |
||||
|
||||
## Rubric |
||||
|
||||
Each criteria in the next set lies along a spectrum. Any project may meet one of |
||||
thses criteria fully, partially, or not at all. For each criteria I assign a |
||||
point value according to how fully a project meets the criteria, and then sum up |
||||
the points to give the project a final score. The project with the highest final |
||||
score is not necessarily the winner, but this system should at least give some |
||||
good candidates for final consideration. |
||||
|
||||
The criteria, and their associated points values, are: |
||||
|
||||
* **Hackability**: is the source-code of the project approachable? |
||||
- 0: No |
||||
- 1: Kind of, and there's not much of a community. |
||||
- 2: Kind of, but there is an active community. |
||||
- 3: Yes |
||||
|
||||
* **Documentation**: is the project well documented? |
||||
- 0: No docs. |
||||
- 1: Incomplete or out-of-date docs. |
||||
- 2: Very well documented. |
||||
|
||||
* **Transience**: how does the system handle hosts appearing or disappearing? |
||||
- 0: Requires an automated system to be built to handle adding/removing |
||||
hosts. |
||||
- 1: Gracefully handled. |
||||
|
||||
* **Priority**: is it possible to give certain hosts priority when choosing |
||||
which will host/replicate some piece of data? |
||||
- 0: No. |
||||
- 1: Yes. |
||||
|
||||
* **Caching**: will hosts reading a file have that file cached locally for the |
||||
next reading (until the file is modified)? |
||||
- 0: No. |
||||
- 1: Yes. |
||||
|
||||
* **Conflicts**: if two hosts updated the same file at the same time, how is |
||||
that handled? |
||||
- 0: The file can no longer be updated. |
||||
- 1: One update clobbers the other, or both go through in an undefined |
||||
order. |
||||
- 2: One update is disallowed. |
||||
- 3: A copy of the file containing the "losing" update is created (ie: how |
||||
dropbox does it). |
||||
- 4: Strategy can be configured on the file/directory level. |
||||
|
||||
* **Consistency**: how does the system handle a file being changed frequently? |
||||
- 0: File changes must be propagated before subsequent updates are allowed (fully consistent). |
||||
- 1: Files are snapshotted at some large-ish interval (eventually consistent). |
||||
- 2: File state (ie content hash, last modifid, etc) is propagated |
||||
frequently but contents are only fully propagated once the file has |
||||
"settled" (eventually consistent with debounce). |
||||
|
||||
* **POSIX**: how POSIX compliant is the mounted fileystem? |
||||
- 0: Only the most basic features are implemented. |
||||
- 1: Some extra features are implemented. |
||||
- 2: Fully POSIX compliant. |
||||
|
||||
* **Scale**: how many hosts can be a part of the cluster? |
||||
- 0: A finite number. |
||||
- 1: A finite number of dedicated hosts, infinite ephemeral. |
||||
- 2: Infinite hosts. |
||||
|
||||
* **Failure**: how does the system handle failures (network partitions, hosts |
||||
hanging, buggy client versions)? |
||||
- 0: Data loss. |
||||
- 1: Reads and writes are halted. |
||||
- 2: Reads are allowed but writes are halted. |
||||
- 3: System is partially read/write, except effected parts. |
||||
|
||||
* **Limitations**: are there limits on how big files can be, or how big |
||||
directories can be? |
||||
- 0: Files are limited to below 1TB in size. |
||||
- 1: Directories are limited to below 100,000 files. |
||||
- 2: No limits. |
||||
|
||||
* **Encryption**: how is data encrypted? |
||||
- 0: Not at all, DIY. |
||||
- 1: Encrypted at rest. |
||||
- 2: Per-user encryption. |
||||
|
||||
* **Permissions**: how are modifications to data restricted? |
||||
- 0: Not at all. |
||||
- 1: Permissions are only superifically enforced. |
||||
- 2: Fully enforced user/group restrictions, complex patterns, and/or POSIX ACLs. |
||||
|
||||
* **Administration**: how much administration is required for the system to |
||||
function? |
||||
- 0: Frequent. |
||||
- 1: Infrequent. |
||||
- 2: Essentially none. |
||||
|
||||
* **Simplicity**: how understandable is the system as a whole? |
||||
- 0: Very complex. |
||||
- 1: Understandable with some study. |
||||
- 2: Very simple, easy to predict. |
||||
|
||||
* **Visibility**: how much visibility is available into processes within the |
||||
system? |
||||
- 0: Total black box. |
||||
- 1: Basic logging. |
||||
- 2: CLI tooling. |
||||
- 3: Exportable metrics (e.g. prometheus). |
||||
|
||||
## Evaluations |
||||
|
||||
With the rubric defined, let's start actually working through our options! There |
||||
are many, many different possibilities, so this may not be an exhaustive list. |
||||
|
||||
### [Ceph](https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/cephfs/index.html) |
||||
|
||||
> The Ceph File System, or CephFS, is a POSIX-compliant file system built on |
||||
> top of Ceph’s distributed object store, RADOS. CephFS endeavors to provide a |
||||
> state-of-the-art, multi-use, highly available, and performant file store for |
||||
> a variety of applications, including traditional use-cases like shared home |
||||
> directories, HPC scratch space, and distributed workflow shared storage. |
||||
|
||||
- Hackability: 2. Very active community, but it's C++. |
||||
- Documentation: 2. Hella docs, very daunting. |
||||
- Transience: 0. Adding hosts seems to require multiple configuration steps. |
||||
- Priority: 1. There is fine-tuning on a per-host basis. |
||||
- Caching: 1. Clients can cache both metadata and block data. |
||||
- Conflicts: 1. The FS behaves as much like a real FS as possible. |
||||
- Consistency: 0. System is CP. |
||||
- POSIX: 2. Fully POSIX compliant. |
||||
- Scale: 2. Cluster can grow without any real bounds. |
||||
- Failure: 3. There's no indication anywhere that Ceph goes into any kind of cluster-wide failure mode. |
||||
- Limitations: 2. There are performance considerations with large directories, but no hard limits. |
||||
- Encryption: 0. None to speak of. |
||||
- Permissions: 2. POSIX ACLs supported. |
||||
- Administration: 1. This is a guess, but Ceph seems to be self-healing in general, but still needs hand-holding in certain situations (adding/removing nodes, etc...) |
||||
- Simplicity: 0. There are many moving pieces, as well as many different kinds of processes and entities. |
||||
- Visibility: 3. Lots of tooling to dig into the state of the cluster, as well as a prometheus module. |
||||
|
||||
TOTAL: 22 |
||||
|
||||
#### Comments |
||||
|
||||
Ceph has been recommended to me by a few people. It is clearly a very mature |
||||
project, though that maturity has brought with it a lot of complexity. A lot of |
||||
the complexity of Ceph seems to be rooted in its strong consistency guarantees, |
||||
which I'm confident it fulfills well, but are not really needed for the |
||||
use-case I'm interested in. I'd prefer a simpler, eventually consistent, |
||||
system. It's also not clear to me that Ceph would even perform very well in my |
||||
use-case as it seems to want an actual datacenter deployment, with beefy |
||||
hardware and hosts which are generally close together. |
||||
|
||||
### [GlusterFS](https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/) |
||||
|
||||
> GlusterFS is a scalable network filesystem suitable for data-intensive tasks |
||||
> such as cloud storage and media streaming. GlusterFS is free and open source |
||||
> software and can utilize common off-the-shelf hardware. |
||||
|
||||
- Hackability: 2. Mostly C code, but there is an active community. |
||||
- Documentation: 2. Good docs. |
||||
- Transience: 0. New nodes cannot add themselves to the pool. |
||||
- Priority: 0. Data is distributed based on consistent hashing algo, nothing else. |
||||
- Caching: 1. Docs mention client-side caching layer. |
||||
- Conflicts: 0. File becomes frozen, manual intervention is needed to save it. |
||||
- Consistency: 0. Gluster aims to be fully consistent. |
||||
- POSIX: 2. Fully POSIX compliant. |
||||
- Scale: 2. No apparent limits. |
||||
- Failure: 3. Clients determine on their own whether or not they have a quorum for a particular sub-volume. |
||||
- Limitations: 2. Limited by the file system underlying each volume, I think. |
||||
- Encryption: 2. Encryption can be done on the volume level, each user could have a private volume. |
||||
- Permissions: 2. ACL checking is enforced on the server-side, but requires syncing of users and group membership across servers. |
||||
- Administration: 1. Beyond adding/removing nodes the system is fairly self-healing. |
||||
- Simplicity: 1. There's only one kind of server process, and the configuration of volumes is is well documented and straightforward. |
||||
- Visibility: 3. Prometheus exporter available. |
||||
|
||||
TOTAL: 23 |
||||
|
||||
#### Comments |
||||
|
||||
GlusterFS was my initial choice when I did a brief survey of DFSs for this |
||||
use-case. However, after further digging into it I think it will suffer the |
||||
same ultimate problem as CephFS: too much consistency for a wide-area |
||||
application like I'm envisioning. The need for syncing user/groups across |
||||
machines as actual system users is also cumbersome enough to make it not a |
||||
great choice. |
||||
|
||||
### [MooseFS](https://moosefs.com/) |
||||
|
||||
> MooseFS is a Petabyte Open Source Network Distributed File System. It is easy |
||||
> to deploy and maintain, highly reliable, fault tolerant, highly performing, |
||||
> easily scalable and POSIX compliant. |
||||
> |
||||
> MooseFS spreads data over a number of commodity servers, which are visible to |
||||
> the user as one resource. For standard file operations MooseFS acts like |
||||
> ordinary Unix-like file system. |
||||
|
||||
- Hackability: 2. All C code, pretty dense, but backed by a company. |
||||
- Documentation: 2. There's a giant PDF you can read through like a book. I |
||||
guess that's.... good? |
||||
- Transience: 0. Nodes must be added manually. |
||||
- Priority: 1. There's "Storage Classes". |
||||
- Caching: 1. Caching is done on the client, and there's some synchronization |
||||
with the master server around it. |
||||
- Conflicts: 1. Both update operations will go through. |
||||
- Consistency: 0. Afaict it's a fully consistent system, with a master server |
||||
being used to synchronize changes. |
||||
- POSIX: 2. Fully POSIX compliant. |
||||
- Scale: 2. Cluster can grow without any real bounds. |
||||
- Failure: 1. If the master server is unreachable then the client can't |
||||
function. |
||||
- Limitations: 2. Limits are very large, effectively no limit. |
||||
- Encryption: 0. Docs make no mention of encryption. |
||||
- Permissions: 1. Afaict permissions are done by the OS on the fuse mount. |
||||
- Administration: 1. It seems that if the topology is stable there shouldn't be |
||||
much going on. |
||||
- Simplicity: 0. There are many moving pieces, as well as many different kinds of processes and entities. |
||||
- Visibility: 2. Lots of cli tooling, no prometheus metrics that I could find. |
||||
|
||||
TOTAL: 17 |
||||
|
||||
Overall MooseFS seems to me like a poor-developer's Ceph. It can do exactly the |
||||
same things, but with less of a community around it. The sale's pitch and |
||||
feature-gating also don't ingratiate it to me. The most damning "feature" is the |
||||
master metadata server, which acts as a SPOF and only sort of supports |
||||
replication (but not failover, unless you get Pro). |
||||
|
||||
## Cutting Room Floor |
||||
|
||||
The following projects were intended to be reviewed, but didn't make the cut for |
||||
various reasons. |
||||
|
||||
* Tahoe-LAFS: The FUSE mount (which is actually an SFTP mount) doesn't support |
||||
mutable files. |
||||
|
||||
* HekaFS: Doesn't appear to exist anymore(?) |
||||
|
||||
* IPFS-cluster: Doesn't support sharding. |
||||
|
||||
* MinFS: Seems to only work off S3, no longer maintained anyway. |
||||
|
||||
* DRDB: Linux specific, no mac support. |
||||
|
||||
* BeeGFS: No mac support (I don't think? I couldn't find any indication it |
||||
supports macs at any rate). |
||||
|
||||
* NFS: No support for sharding the dataset. |
||||
|
||||
## Conclusions |
||||
|
||||
Going through the featuresets of all these different projects really helped me |
||||
focus in on how I actually expect this system to function, and a few things |
||||
stood out to me: |
||||
|
||||
* Perfect consistency is not a goal, and is ultimately harmful for this |
||||
use-case. The FS needs to propagate changes relatively quickly, but if two |
||||
different hosts are updating the same file it's not necessary to synchronize |
||||
those updates like a local filesystem would; just let one changeset clobber |
||||
the other and let the outer application deal with coordination. |
||||
|
||||
* Permissions are extremely important, and yet for all these projects are |
||||
generally an afterthought. In a distributed setting we can't rely on the OS |
||||
user/groups of a host to permission read/write access. Instead that must be |
||||
done primarily via e2e encryption. |
||||
|
||||
* Transience is not something most of these project expect, but is a hard |
||||
requirement of this use-case. In the long run we need something which can be |
||||
run on home hardware on home ISPs, which is not reliable at all. Hosts need to |
||||
be able to flit in and out of existence, and the cluster as a whole needs to |
||||
self-heal through that process. |
||||
|
||||
In the end, it may be necessary to roll our own project for this, as I don't |
||||
think any of the existing distributed file systems are suitable for what's |
||||
needed. |
||||
|
||||
[mobile_nebula]: https://github.com/cryptic-io/mobile_nebula |
||||
[nix]: https://nixos.org/manual/nix/stable/ |
||||
Loading…
Reference in new issue