goseaweedfs VS rancher

You can check SeaweedFS https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs

ChubaoFS - distributed file system and object storage Longhorn - Cloud-Native distributed block storage built on and for Kubernetes OpenEBS - Kubernetes native - hyperconverged block storage with multiple storage engines Rook - Storage Orchestration for Kubernetes SeaweedFS - Distributed file system supports read-write many volumes TiKV - Distributed transactional key-value database velero - Backup and migrate Kubernetes applications and their persistent volumes Vitess - Vitess is a database clustering system for horizontal scaling of MySQL kaDalu - A lightweight Persistent storage solution for Kubernetes / OpenShift using GlusterFS in background

seaweedfs - SeaweedFS is a simple and highly scalable distributed file system for small files.

Seaweedfs looks quite promising but its public url uuid is in the form of <32-bit volume, 64-bit file key, 32-bit file cookie>. The volume is probably fixed most of the time, the file key is an incrementing number while the file cookie is random. 32-bit seems too small to prevent guessing.

MinIO team care about an issue if you are paid customer, not for people who use the open source. Indeed MinIO is not even fully S3 compatible with many edge cases and close the issues related to it by saying it’s not a priority.

You might want to look at other options as well like SeaweedFS [0] a POSIX compliant S3 compatible distributed file system.

[0] https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs

SeaweedFS is a fast, distributed storage system for blobs, objects, files and data that stores/serves billions of files. Can transparently integrate with the cloud with both fast local access and elastic cloud storage capacity. Blob store has O(1) disk seek, local and cloud tiering. Filer supports cross-cluster active-active replication, Kubernetes, POSIX, S3 API, encryption, Erasure Coding for warm storage, FUSE mount, Hadoop and WebDAV. chrislusf finds "it is much faster than the 'high performance' Minio."

welcome to help with https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs

(I work on SeaweedFS) How about using SeaweedFS? https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs

With your dedicated server, the latency is consistent, No API/network cost. Extra data can be tiered to S3.

Basically it is a key-file store.

https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs/wiki/Filer-as-a-Key-L...

https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs/wiki/Cloud-Tier

I am working on SeaweedFS. But seriously, use http://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs

Did something happen to the Apache 2 rancher? https://github.com/rancher/rancher/blob/v2.7.5/LICENSE RKE2 is similarly Apache 2: https://github.com/rancher/rke2/blob/v1.26.7%2Brke2r1/LICENS...

I follow the 4 ABCD steps bellow, but the first pod deployment never ends. What's wrong in it? Logs and result screens are at the end. Detailed configuration can be found here.

CVE-2023-22651 is rated 9.9/10 : https://github.com/rancher/rancher/security/advisories/GHSA-6m9f-pj6w-w87g

Depends. When I came into my last company I immediately noticed the lack of reproducible environments. Brought this up a few times and was met with some resistance because "we didn't have the capacity"... Until prod went down and it took us 23 hours to bring it back up due to spaghetti terraform.

For the latest releases of rancher: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/releases When is Rancher 2.7.1 going to be released? The Rancher support matrix for 2.7.1 shows k8s v1.24.6 as the highest supported version and Azure will drop AKS v1.24 in a few months... Should this be a concern for us? What could happen if we create our cluster with Rancher for an unsupported K8s version? 1.25 for example. - Rancher 2.7.2 just got released including support for 1.25. I have however tested running unsupported versions before, unless there is major deprecations in the kubernetes API it is fine in my experience. If we move to AKS imported clusters, in case we add node pools, and upgrade the cluster, will those changes be reflected in the Rancher Platform? - Yep! If we face some issues by running an unsupported K8s version on Rancher Launched K8s clusters, is it possible to remove it from Rancher, do the stuff we need, and then import it into the platform? - Yes, however be careful and do testing before doing in prod. From top of mind: Remove cluster from rancher (if imported), if rancher created you might want to revoke ranchers SA key for the cluster first (so it can't remove it). Delete the cattle-system namespace, and any other cattle-* namespaces you don't want to keep. And do your thing. It looks like AKS is faster than Rancher regarding supported Kubernetes versions... We would like to know if Rancher will always be on track with AKS regarding the removal of K8s version support and new versions. - In my experience yes. (Been using rancher on all three clouds for a 4 years now). What are exactly the big differences between imported AKS and Rancher-launched AKS? What should we look at, and what issues can we face when using one or another? - The main difference is that rancher will not be able to upgrade the cluster for you. You will have to do that yourself.

variable "rancher" { type = object({ namespace = string version = string branch = string chart_set = list(object({ name = string value = string })) }) default = { namespace = "cattle-system" # There is a bug with destroying the cloud credentials in version 2.6.9 until 2.7.1 and will be fixed in next release 2.7.2. # See https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/39300 version = "2.7.0" branch = "stable" chart_set = [ { name = "replicas" value = 3 }, { name = "ingress.ingressClassName" value = "nginx-external" }, { name = "ingress.tls.source" value = "rancher" }, # There is a bug with the uninstallation of Rancher due to missing priorityClassName of rancher-webhook # The priorityClassName need to be set # See https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/40935 { name = "priorityClassName" value = "system-node-critical" } ] } description = "Rancher Helm chart properties." }

When I searched DuckDuckGo instead, the 12th link actually had the real answer. It's in this issue on Rancher's GitHub. Turns out the Rancher admin needs to be in all of the Keycloak groups they want to have show up in the auto-populated picklist in Rancher. Being a Keycloak admin and even creating the groups isn't good enough. Frustratingly, the "caveat" note the Rancher guy is pointing to that says this is only present in the guide to setting up Keycloak for SAML, but apparently this is also true for OIDC.

Explicitly set TLS 1.3 in Rancher, though it could be a bug in Rancher: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/35654

Thanks. Yeah looks like this might work: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/releases/tag/v2.7.2-rc3