You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

41 lines
1.5 KiB

  1. # Reliability and Scalability
  2. ## Is mergerfs "production ready?"
  3. Yes.
  4. mergerfs has been around for over a decade and used by many users on
  5. their systems. Typically running 24/7 with constant load.
  6. At least a few companies are believed to use mergerfs in production
  7. environments. A number of [NAS focused operating
  8. systems](../related_projects.md) includes mergerfs as a solution for
  9. pooling filesystems.
  10. Most serious issues (crashes or data corruption) have been due to
  11. [kernel bugs](../known_issues_bugs.md#fuse-and-linux-kernel). All of
  12. which are fixed in stable releases.
  13. ## How well does mergerfs scale?
  14. Users have reported running mergerfs on everything from OpenWRT
  15. routers and Raspberry Pi SBCs to multi-socket Xeon enterprise servers.
  16. Users have pooled everything from USB thumb drives to enterprise NVME
  17. SSDs to remote filesystems and rclone mounts.
  18. The cost of many calls can be `O(n)` meaning adding more branches to
  19. the pool will increase the cost of certain functions, such as reading
  20. directories or finding files to open, but there are a number of caches
  21. and strategies in place to limit overhead where possible.
  22. ## Are there any limits?
  23. There is no maximum capacity beyond what is imposed by the operating
  24. system itself. Any limit is practical rather than technical. As
  25. explained in the question about scale mergerfs is mostly limited by
  26. the tolerated cost of aggregating branches and the cost associated
  27. with interacting with them. If you pool slow network filesystem then
  28. that will naturally impact performance more than low latency SSDs.