The fact that a repost got so many upvotes means the post has a lot of value, but many missed it previously. Perhaps it would be better to allow reposts to collect karma as usual so they would have a chance to get to the front page, but have the repost&#x27;s link and comment page redirect to the existing post&#x27;s link and comment page (unless a certain amount of time has passed, then the repost can be its own post and have its own comments section, which is the system we already have).I think being able to identify what&#x27;s worthy of reposting deserves upvotes, too. If a repost truly provided little to no value, then the number of upvotes would reflect that and it would never get to the front page. But in this case, many people and myself included would have never found the post if it weren&#x27;t for this repost.Different batches of users are on HN at different times and on different days. Allowing reposts to collect karma would mean that every link&#x27;s exposure is derived from the entire HN userbase&#x27;s votes rather than a small subset of the users that happened to be online at the time of the post.

&gt; Karma jealously is as unbecoming as karma whoring, so perhaps wind the ol&#x27; neck in a little there. Laziness&#x2F;ineptitude is more common than malice and this could have been accidental via quick copy+paste.Agreed, and sorry for that (even though my gut and not-so-gut feeling is that it was done on purpose rather than by mistake, but I might be on the wrong side myself on this).

&gt; Dang &amp; co, this is a bug, it should be fixed.Agreed, more or less, this would be easy to work around naively. Though an duplicate detection should not block reposts based on removing the anchor nor should the anchor portion automatically be removed generally. Some sites unnecessarily setup as SPAs use the anchor portion for context so it is needed for direct links to the right article in those¹, and going directly to a specific section in a long page can also be useful.&gt; nice karma trick posting the URL with the anchor to bypass the HN duplicates detector.Karma jealously is as unbecoming as karma whoring, so perhaps wind the ol&#x27; neck in a little there. Laziness&#x2F;ineptitude is more common than malice and this could have been accidental via quick copy+paste.A better way to respond in this situation is a more neutral “Already recently discussed at [link]”, as had been done some hours before your comment: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=45646691#45647047">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=45646691#45647047</a>----[1] Yes, those sites are badly designed, but they are unlikely to change because of our technical preferences and breaking the ability to deep link into them would add an issue for HN while not being noticed by those sites at all.

To the OP: nice karma trick posting the URL with the anchor to bypass the HN duplicates detector. Dang &amp; co, this is a bug, it should be fixed.I know because I stumbled on the same page following the links from the blog of the author of another post that made the frontpage yesterday (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=45589156">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=45589156</a>), liked the TernFS concept, submitted it and got redirected to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=45290245">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=45290245</a>

If you only need 20 Gb&#x2F;s, you might be able to meet your needs without an exotic distributed filesystem by just getting a single giant server with a rack full of JBODs:Something like this [1] gets you 44 disks in 4u. You can probably fit 9 of those and a server with enough HBAs to interface with it in a 42U rack. 9x44x20TB = not quite 8 PB. Adjust for redundancy and&#x2F;or larger drives. If you go with SAS drives, you can have two servers connected to the drives, with failover. Or you can setup two of these racks in different locations and mirror the data (somehow).[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supermicro.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;products&#x2F;chassis&#x2F;4U&#x2F;847&#x2F;SC847E1C-R1K23JBOD" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supermicro.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;products&#x2F;chassis&#x2F;4U&#x2F;847&#x2F;SC847E...</a> (as an illustration, sas jbods aka disk shelves are widely available from server vendors)

Seriously man, I&#x27;m asking because I don&#x27;t know: which filesystems do you recommend instead? I dabbled in CephFS because our data is write-once, but helping computer illiterate research scientists at other universities and national labs retrieve their data is a lot simpler from Lustre because it&#x27;s just plain-old POSIX filesystem semantics.I&#x27;m not joking, I didn&#x27;t ask this as a way to namedrop my experience and credentials (common &#x27;round this neck o&#x27; the woods), I honestly don&#x27;t know what all the much more competent organizations are doing and would really like to find out.

There are several other systems I would recommend before TernFS for your environment. If you&#x27;re looking at Lustre versus this in particular, Lustre has been through the wringer, and ANL&#x2F;DOE has plenty of people who understand it enough to run it well and fix it when it breaks.However, you are right. Your bandwidth needs don&#x27;t really require Lustre.

Could anybody with applicable experience tell me how this filesystem compares in the real world to Lustre?If it is decisively better than Lustre, I am happy to make the switch over at my sector in Argonne National Lab where we currently keep about 0.7 PB of image data and eventually intend to hold 3-5 PB once we switch over all 3 of our beamlines to using Dectris X-Ray detectors.Contrary to what the non-computer scientists insist, we only need about 20Gb&#x2F;s of throughput in either direction, so robustness and simplicity are the only concerns we have.

Previously: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=45290245">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=45290245</a>

CephFS looks stable, and has diskprediction and Prometheus modules:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.ceph.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;quincy&#x2F;cephfs&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.ceph.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;quincy&#x2F;cephfs&#x2F;index.html</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;ceph&#x2F;ceph" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;ceph&#x2F;ceph</a>Still not completely decoupled from host roles, but seems to work for some folks. =3

should post again when having 5% of the features of the other parallel file systems starting with RDMA, whereby it&#x27;s not clear if this FS does even stripe that is if it is even a parallel file system

Given all the good work ZFS does locally, it does make you wonder what it would take to extend the concepts of ARC caching and RAID redundancy to a distributed system, one where all the nodes are joined together by RDMA rather than ethernet; one where reliability can be taken for granted (short of a rat chewing cables).It would make for one heck of a FreeBSD development project grant, considering how superb their ZFS and their networking stack are separately.P.S. Glad someone pointed this out tactfully. A lot of people would have pounced on the chance to mock the poor commenter who just didn&#x27;t know what he didn&#x27;t know. The culture associated with software development falsely equates being opinionated with being knowledgeable, so hopefully we get a lot more people reducing the stigma of not knowing and reducing the stigma of saying &quot;I don&#x27;t know&quot;.

ZFS is not distributed. So probably closer to ceph or lustre. I have to admit, on my first pass through the page it failed to explain why it was better than ceph.

Isn&#x27;t this literally what ZFS is designed for? What is ZFS lacking that this is needed.

TernFS – an exabyte scale, multi-region distributed filesystem