[ChocolateGod]

Let's remember that JuiceFS can be setup very easily to not have a single point of failure (by replicating the metadata engine), meanwhile ZeroFS seems to have exactly that.

If I was a company I know which one I'd prefer.

[__turbobrew__]

Yea, that is a big caveat to ZeroFS. Single point of failure. It is like saying I can write a faster etcd by only having a single node. Sure, that is possible, but the hard part of distributed systems is the coordination, and coordination always makes performance worse.

I personally have went with Ceph for distributed storage. I personally have a lot more confidence in Ceph over JuiceFS and ZeroFS, but realize building and running a ceph cluster is more complex, but with that complexity you get much cheaper S3, block storage, and cephfs.

[ChocolateGod]

I replaced a GlusterFS cluster with JuiceFS some years ago and it's been a relief. Just much easier to manage.

[suavesu]

Some users use JuiceFS with CephFS RADOS, as alternative with Ceph MDS.