Why we build our platform on HDFS

Why we build our platform on HDFS by Charles Zedlewski

Charles Zedlewski pushes the number of Hadoop competitors up to twelve:

It’s not often the case that I have a chance to concur with my colleague E14 over at Hortonworks but his recent blog post gave the perfect opportunity. I wanted to build on a few of E14’s points and add some of my own.

A recent GigaOm article presented 8 alternatives to HDFS. They actually missed at least 4 others. For over a year, Parascale marketed itself as an HDFS alternative (until it became an asset sale to Hitachi). Appistry continues to market its HDFS alternative. I’m not sure if it’s released yet but it is very evident that Symantec’s Veritas unit is proposing its Clustered Filesystem (CFS) as an alternative to HDFS as well. HP Ibrix has also supported the HDFS API for some years now.

The GigaOm article implies that the presence of twelve other vendors promoting alternatives must speak to some deficiencies in HDFS for what else would motivate so many offerings? This really draws the incorrect conclusion. I would ask this:

What can we conclude from the fact that there are:

Best links I have for Hadoop competitors (for your convenience and additions):

  1. Appistry
  2. Cassandra (DataStax)
  3. Ceph (Inktrack)
  4. Clustered Filesystem (CFS)
  5. Dispersed Storage Network (Cleversafe)
  6. GPFS (IBM)
  7. Ibrix
  8. Isilon (EMC)
  9. Lustre
  10. MapR File System
  11. NetApp Open Solution for Hadoop
  12. Parascale

Comments are closed.