5 ms·
Disclaim: I work on SeaweedFS. Why skipping SeaweedFS? It rank #1 on all benchmarks, and has a lot of features.
by chrislusf 9mo ago
Disclaim: I work on SeaweedFS.
Why skipping SeaweedFS? It rank #1 on all benchmarks, and has a lot of features.
- dionian 9mo agocan you link benchmarks
- chrislusf 9mo agoIt is in the parent comment.
- meotimdihia 9mo agoI confirm this, I used SeaweedFS to serve 1M users daily with 56 million images / ~100TB with 2 servers + HDD only, while Minio can't do this. Seaweedfs performance is much better than Minio's. The only problem is that SeaweedFS documentation is hard to understand.
- magicalhippo 9mo agoSeaweedFS is also so optimized for small objects, it can't store larger objects (max 32GiB[1]). Not a concern for many use-cases, just something to be aware of as it's not a universal solution. [1]: https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs?tab=readme-ov-file#storage-size https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs?tab=readme-ov-file#st...
- chrislusf 9mo agoNot correct. The files are chunked into smaller pieces and spread to all volume servers.
- magicalhippo 9mo agoWell, then I suggest updating the incorrect readme. It's why I've ignored SeaweedFS.
- ted_dunning 9mo agoSeaweedFS is very nice and takes quite an effort to lose data.