[uroni]

I've been working on https://github.com/uroni/hs5 as a replacement with similar goals to early minio.

The core is stable at this point, but the user/policy management and the web interface is still in the works.

[giancarlostoro]

Looks like you cleanly point out their violation of the AGPL. I wish I were a lawyer with nothing better to do, I'd definitely be suing the MinIO group, there's no way they can cleanly remove the AGPL code outsiders contributed.

[mbreese]

I don't think there would be an issue with removing AGPL contributed code. You can't force someone to distribute something they don't want to. IANAL, but I believe that what (all?) copyright in software is most concerned with is the active distribution of code -- not the removal of code.

That said, if there was contributed AGPL code, they couldn't change the license on that part of the code w/o a CLA. AGPL also doesn't necessarily mean you have to make the code publicly available, just available to those that you give the program to (I'm assuming AGPL is like the GPL in this regard).

So, that I'd be curious about it is -- (1) is there any contributed AGPL code in the current version? (2) what license is granted to customers of the enterprise version?

Minio can completely use whatever license they want for their code. But, if there was contributed code w/o a CLA, then I'm not sure how a commercial/enterprise license would play with contriubuted AGPL code. It would be an interesting question to find out.

[bityard]

I don't see a contributor licensing agreement (CLA), so you may be right.

(I personally choose not to contribute to projects with CLAs, I don't want my contributions to become closed-source in the future.)

[EgoIncarnate]

MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL). https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...

[uroni]

I'm not a contributor to Minio. This is its own separate thing.

I do have a separate AGPL project (see github) where I have nearly all of the copyright and have looked into how one would be able to enforce this in the US at some point and it did look pretty bleak -- it is a civil suit where you have to show damages etc. but IANAL.

I did not like the FUD they were spreading about AGPL at the time since it is a good license for end-user applications.

[sph]

Good time to post a Show HN for your project then

[bityard]

Interesting! I like the relative simplicity and durability guarantees. I can see using this for dev and proof of concept. Or in situations where HA/RAID are handled lower in the stack.

What is the performance like for reads, writes, and deletes?

And just to play devil's advocate: What would you say to someone who argues that you've essentially reimplemented a filesystem?

[uroni]

It uses LMDB, so if the object mapping fits in memory that should be pretty optimal for reading, while using the build-in Linux page cache and not a separate one (important for testing use cases). For write/deletes it has a bit of write-amplification due to the copy-on-write btree. I've implemented a separate, optional WAL for this and also a mode where writes/delete can be bundeled in a transaction, but in practice I think the performance difference should not matter.

W.r.t. filesystem: Yes, aware of this. Initially used minio and also implemented the use case directly on XFS as well and only had problems at larger scales (that still fit on a machine) with it. Ceph went into a similar direction with BlueStore (reimplementing the filesystem, but with RocksDB).

[MrZander]

I wish I knew about this last week. I spent way too long trying out MinIO alternatives before getting SeaweedFS to work, but it is overkill for my purposes.

Looks like a great alternative.