I've been working occasionally on something sort of similar, still mostly vaporware:
https://github.com/tarcieri/cryptosphere On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Been looking for a distributed filesystem with no luck, any ideas? > > Distributed meaning that there is no single central access point. > So the concept of mounting might mean amongst the roving set able > to service it, or some underlying graph of it, something like: > > mount -t dht dht://<seed_node> /dist1 > > > Users add their free block devices to the global backing store which > was initialized with certain ZFS-like integrity and redundancy > guarantees. > > Files would never vanish unless there are no longer enough blocks > in the backing store to meet the init time guarantees. > > Users could either copy their hierarchies into the space, or attach > them into the space for continued local maintenance. > > The one time init setting of a space could include whether pki > recognized root users could maintain the overall hierarchy. Uid's > might be an insertion node id. > > There may need to be voting authority on file/tree expiry if under > space pressure, perhaps bitcoin-like, with the metrics established > at init time. > > Users could add their block devices to whatever pool had the metrics > they like. > > Anononymity and crypto would provide incentive to donate resources > since unlike say bittorrent, no legal fear means no hit and run > required. > > > I don't really know what it might look like. Just that it needs > sha2/3 integrity, redundancy, and file lifetime guarantees. It needs > to be global, anonymous, and be a usable file system. And somehow > deal with abusive fill such as dd if=/dev/zero of=zero, which implies > some kind of moderated hierarchies appointed by the initializing > entity. > > AFS is nice that users can bolt their filespace into the tree, and > it has filesystem semantics. > > ZFS/BTRFS is nice due to their sha256 integrity, raidz redundancy > and simple backing block device ideas. > > FreeNet/GnuNet/BitTorrent and all other 'filesharing' protocols are > no good because there is no guarantee that files will not vanish. > And they have no filesystem semantics, only push/fetch. > > RedHat GFS / DragonFly HAMMER are interesting as a distributed > filesystem in which real work can be done on live files. > > Tahoe-LAFS is nice due to adding in block devices, but no good > because of the central access point. Perhaps that could be distributed? > > Phantom/I2P/Tor could be used as the backend IP transport. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Distributed_parallel_fault-tolerant_file_systems > > > The only thing that makes it worth while is that a lot of people > have free space, want to give an get data, safely, and don't want > to see their work in populating it wasted... so it can't go away. > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
