osync VS GlusterFS

I tried googling and see this github repo for a shell tool called osync. Not sure if that's what it is or if that's a "red herring". From reading the description of that tool, it sounds like it's syncing files? With what? From what?

I still use it, because that's what I decided to set up after looking around and people raining praise onto it, but I wouldn't ever recommend it. It's a neat project, it does work if you essentially never touch it afterwards, but it's not a useful one as is if you do want to move things around a bit. I'd much rather use anything else, even proprietary solutions, than have to use Syncthing. When I stop lazing about and rebuild my system, I'm probably moving over to osync or something. Better that than Syncthing.

A tool called osync which might be able to do the job, it's like OS-level solution.

I've been considering simply moving over to osync because the little shit can't even handle a few additional files without crapping out. It works fine, when it works, but I almost don't dare touch it lest it crap itself out again. Its a sync program, adding a folder of some twenty pictures should not make it decide to dig an early grave.

https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/894

And apparently apart from modern coreutils using that, it is mostly gentoo users hitting the bugs in lseek.

This Product Appendix does not apply to online service offerings managed by Red Hat or generally available open source projects such as www.wildfly.org, www.fedoraproject.org, www.openstack.redhat.com, www.gluster.org, www.centos.org, okd.io, Ansible Project Software or other community projects.

Just because Red Hat will stop selling commercial support for their product, does not mean GlusterFS itself is dying. It's an open source project like any other - https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs

https://www.gluster.org/ Is the way to do this across nodes

This allows us to fetch the desired quality of the video as per the user's request, and once the media file finishes processing, it will be uploaded to a distributed file storage such as HDFS, GlusterFS, or an object storage such as Amazon S3 for later retrieval during streaming.

GlusterFS

But where can we store files at scale? Well, object storage is what we're looking for. Object stores break data files up into pieces called objects. It then stores those objects in a single repository, which can be spread out across multiple networked systems. We can also use distributed file storage such as HDFS or GlusterFS.

GlusterFS - same as above (https://www.gluster.org/)

What you look for is a clustered file system. Like https://www.gluster.org/. As long as all units are closeby with low latency there are a couple solutions that allow you to create distributed storage solutions of various kinds. Key value stores applenty, clustered file systems that pretent to be one file system etc. If you have geographically distributed solutions with high latencies it becomes harder. Most open source systems don't work really well in this scenario. There were a couple attempts like Hydrabase but they didn't go so far. It normally is solved by doing two clusters and then replicate between them.

I'd imagine most managed service providers are going to require a credit card, though most of them have a free tier. If you want to take an unmanaged approach, maybe look into Gluster. I've used it before and never had issue with it, but I also had an infrastructure team that set it up, so I'm not familiar with the challenges that way: https://www.gluster.org/