juicefs VS csi-gcs

Support for Kerberos keytab files

JuiceFS under the Apache License 2.0, is a high-performance POSIX file system optimized for cloud-native environments. It stores data in Object Storage (e.g., Amazon S3) and metadata in databases like Redis, MySQL, or TiKV. JuiceFS integrates massive cloud storage with big data, machine learning, and AI applications efficiently, akin to local storage. It features full POSIX and Hadoop compatibility, S3 interface, Kubernetes support, and shared file storage for numerous clients. Some cool features are - strong consistency, scalable performance, data encryption, global file locks, and compression with LZ4 or Zstandard.

To improve the handling process of capacity overrun, the JuiceFS client supports deletion operations in the case of Ceph cluster fullness (see related code changes in JuiceFS Community Edition). Therefore, for newer client versions, there is no need to use set-full-ratio for temporary adjustments.

If you have any questions or would like to learn more, feel free to join discussions about JuiceFS on GitHub and the JuiceFS community on Slack.

The architecture image shows GCS and others, so I suspect it does.

https://github.com/juicedata/juicefs#architecture

See also: JuiceFS: https://juicefs.com/

Adds a DBMS or key-value store for metadata, making the filesystem much faster (POSIX, small overwrites don't have to replace a full object in the GCS/S3 backend).

Almost certainly a better solution if you want to turn your object storage into a mountable filesystem, with the (big) caveat that you can't access the files directly in the bucket (they are not stored transparently).

JuiceFS can do the same thing as s3fs-fuse, but better. Because it supports robust data consistency and caching policies to improve performance.

You're right their Apache licenses are different:

https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-APACHE

https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver/b...

OP should submit a PR to correct this. IANAL but pretty sure they're supposed to use the original copy including copyright notice "Copyright 2020 Ofek Lev"

Any Kubernetes cluster requires persistent storage - whether organizations choose to begin with an on-premise Kubernetes cluster and migrate to the public cloud, or provision a Kubernetes cluster using a managed service in the cloud. Kubernetes supports multiple types of persistent storage – from object storage (such as Azure Blob storage or Google Cloud Storage), block storage (such as Amazon EBS, Azure Disk, or Google Persistent Disk), or file sharing storage (such as Amazon EFS, Azure Files or Google Cloud Filestore). The fact that each cloud provider has its implementation of persistent storage adds to the complexity of storage management, not to mention a scenario where an organization is provisioning Kubernetes clusters over several cloud providers. To succeed in managing Kubernetes clusters over a long period, knowing which storage type to use for each scenario, requires storage expertise.

I came across this: https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs Looked super promising - mount a gcs bucket with RWX? giddy up! Of course, when the runner started up my dind container decided to have an aneurism. See output here if you want: https://pastebin.com/N7tKxzwx