Comparison of distributed file systems

See also: Comparison of distributed parallel fault-tolerant file systems

In computing, a distributed file system (DFS) or network file system is any file system that allows access from multiple hosts to files shared via a computer network. This makes it possible for multiple users on multiple machines to share files and storage resources.

Distributed file systems differ in their performance, mutability of content, handling of concurrent writes, handling of permanent or temporary loss of nodes or storage, and their policy of storing content.

Locally managed

FOSS

Client	Written in	License	Access API	High availability	Shards	Efficient Redundancy	Redundancy Granularity	Initial release year	Memory requirements (GB)
Alluxio (Virtual Distributed File System)	Java	Apache License 2.0	HDFS, FUSE, HTTP/REST, S3	hot standby	No	Replication[1]	File[2]	2013
Ceph	C++	LGPL	librados (C, C++, Python, Ruby), S3, Swift, FUSE	Yes	Yes	Pluggable erasure codes[3]	Pool[4]	2010	1 per TB of storage
Coda	C	GPL	C	Yes	Yes	Replication	Volume[5]	1987
GlusterFS	C	GPLv3	libglusterfs, FUSE, NFS, SMB, Swift, libgfapi	mirror	Yes	Reed-Solomon[6]	Volume[7]	2005
HDFS	Java	Apache License 2.0	Java and C client, HTTP, FUSE[8]	transparent master failover	No	Reed-Solomon[9]	File[10]	2005
IPFS	Go	Apache 2.0 or MIT	HTTP gateway, FUSE, Go client, Javascript client, command line tool	Yes	with IPFS Cluster	Replication[11]	Block[12]	2015[13]
LizardFS[14]	C++	GPLv3	POSIX, FUSE, NFS-Ganesha, Ceph FSAL (via libcephfs)	master	No	Reed-Solomon[15]	File[16]	2013
Lustre	C	GPLv2	POSIX, NFS-Ganesha, NFS, SMB	Yes	Yes	No redundancy[17][18]	No redundancy[19][20]	2003
MinIO	Go	AGPL3.0	AWS S3 API, FTP, SFTP	Yes	Yes	Reed-Solomon[21]	Object[22]	2014
MooseFS	C	GPLv2	POSIX, FUSE	master	No	Replication[23]	File[24]	2008
OpenAFS	C	IBM Public License	Virtual file system, Installable File System			Replication	Volume[25]	2000[26]
OpenIO[27]	C	AGPLv3 / LGPLv3	Native (Python, C, Java), HTTP/REST, S3, Swift, FUSE (POSIX, NFS, SMB, FTP)	Yes		Pluggable erasure codes[28]	Object[29]	2015	0.5
Quantcast File System	C	Apache License 2.0	C++ client, FUSE (C++ server: MetaServer and ChunkServer are both in C++)	master	No	Reed-Solomon[30]	File[31]	2012
RozoFS	C, Python	GPLv2	FUSE, SMB, NFS, key/value	Yes		Mojette[32]	Volume[33]	2011[34]
Tahoe-LAFS	Python	GNU GPL[35]	HTTP (browser or CLI), SFTP, FTP, FUSE via SSHFS, pyfilesystem			Reed-Solomon[36]	File[37]	2007
XtreemFS	Java, C++	BSD License	libxtreemfs (Java, C++), FUSE			Replication[38]	File[39]	2009

Proprietary

Client	Written in	License	Access API
BeeGFS	C / C++	FRAUNHOFER FS (FhGFS) EULA,[40] GPLv2 client	POSIX
ObjectiveFS[41]	C	Proprietary	POSIX, FUSE
Spectrum Scale (GPFS)	C, C++	Proprietary	POSIX, NFS, SMB, Swift, S3, HDFS
MapR-FS	C, C++	Proprietary	POSIX, NFS, FUSE, S3, HDFS, CLI
Isilon OneFS	C/C++	Proprietary	POSIX, NFS, SMB/CIFS, HDFS, HTTP, FTP, SWIFT Object, CLI, Rest API
Qumulo	C/C++	Proprietary	POSIX, NFS, SMB/CIFS, CLI, S3, Rest API
Scality	C	Proprietary	FUSE, NFS, REST, AWS S3

Remote access

Name	Run by	Access API
Amazon S3	Amazon.com	HTTP (REST/SOAP)
Google Cloud Storage	Google	HTTP (REST)
SWIFT (part of OpenStack)	Rackspace, Hewlett-Packard, others	HTTP (REST)
Microsoft Azure	Microsoft	HTTP (REST)
IBM Cloud Object Storage	IBM (formerly Cleversafe)[42]	HTTP (REST)

Comparison

Some researchers have made a functional and experimental analysis of several distributed file systems including HDFS, Ceph, Gluster, Lustre and old (1.6.x) version of MooseFS, although this document is from 2013 and a lot of information are outdated (e.g. MooseFS had no HA for Metadata Server at that time).^[43]

The cloud based remote distributed storage from major vendors have different APIs and different consistency models.^[44]

See also

• Distributed file system
• List of file systems, the Distributed file systems section