Feature #1247
closedPossible new feature - mod_proxy_backend_mogilefs (1.5?) or mod_mogilefs (1.4)
Description
One of the main drawbacks of MogileFS is it must be application aware. However, if the application is a webserver, it could effectively provide transparent file access across N number of servers (MogileFS should scale horizontally quite well)
This might not be useful for PHP/etc. apps, since those would have no concept of the "virtual" filesystem in place, however for hosting binaries/media files/etc, this could provide a neat solution to replace the need for NFS (and provide probably more thoroughput, redundancy, etc.)
It would allow for the files the webserver accesses to be completely transparent in the event of a server loss (as long as each file is being replicated at least 2x in the storage cluster)
More info on MogileFS here: http://danga.com/mogilefs/
(Looks like it already has ties in to Lighty, possibly for its GET requests: see Mogstored::HTTPServer::Lighttpd)
Updated by mike503 almost 17 years ago
I suppose it could be a variant of this:
header("X-LIGHTTPD-send-file: /path/to/protected/file");
But perhaps:
header("X-LIGHTTPD-mogilefs-send-file: /path/to/protected/file");
Or something...
Updated by gstrauss almost 8 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Status changed from New to Missing Feedback
- Assignee deleted (
jan)
The documentation about MogileFS at http://danga.com/mogilefs/ is fairly sparse. It does appear that mod_webdav can be used instead of MogileFS-Server (mogostored) See https://github.com/mogilefs/MogileFS-Server/blob/master/doc/lighttpd.conf
Any current interest in this feature request? Why use MogileFS versus other options? What benefits are there to a mod_mogilefs versus just using mod_webdav?
Also available in: Atom