I saw that the new 3.0 version will be implementing multi-servers feature so I would like to request to include FTP as well. As NAS is capable of holding TBs of storage space, but they are quite "dumb" to host 3rd party server-client software hence only FTP access is feasible. I would like to urge the developer to include FTP access to the multi-server feature alongside with the Chevereto-server client function.
-
Welcome to the Chevereto User Community!
Here, users from all over the world come together to learn, share, and collaborate on everything related to Chevereto. It's a place to exchange ideas, ask questions, and help improve the software.
Please keep in mind:
- This community is user-driven. Always be polite and respectful to others.
- Support development by purchasing a Chevereto license, which also gives you priority support.
- Go further by joining the Community Subscription for even faster response times and to help sustain this space
NAS (Network Attached Storage) Support
- Thread starter GPGT
- Start date
- Status
The problem with FTP is that is highly limited for this purpose because is not made for this. The whole idea of the multiservers is not balance the storage, is balance the load. Any normal server can easily handle tbs of data, thing is how many peers do you have and that is the real pain for the system, not how many disk space is used.
Use a NAS with FTP will mean a persistent connection over that protocol for every single file interaction like PUT, DELETE, RENAME and I'm not sure if the protocol can meet this. I've saw myself that when I upload more than 3 files at the same times through FTP the transfer quality is really poor and many packets are lost. With the best host that I have I notice that issues when I upload simultaneous 10 files... I believe that a public site will have way more than 10 simultaneous task and like I said, that maximum depends on the system. If your NAS is not industrial grade then I bet that it can't handle (with no lost) more than 10 simultaneous taks.
I believe that the best that you can do is investigate if you can use in your HTTP server a NAS remote server as storage without affecting the script side and I believe that there must be a protocol to interact with a NAS server that should be better than FTP.
Use a NAS with FTP will mean a persistent connection over that protocol for every single file interaction like PUT, DELETE, RENAME and I'm not sure if the protocol can meet this. I've saw myself that when I upload more than 3 files at the same times through FTP the transfer quality is really poor and many packets are lost. With the best host that I have I notice that issues when I upload simultaneous 10 files... I believe that a public site will have way more than 10 simultaneous task and like I said, that maximum depends on the system. If your NAS is not industrial grade then I bet that it can't handle (with no lost) more than 10 simultaneous taks.
I believe that the best that you can do is investigate if you can use in your HTTP server a NAS remote server as storage without affecting the script side and I believe that there must be a protocol to interact with a NAS server that should be better than FTP.
thanks for the explanation, you got a point there. My impression of the way it is implemented will be something like this... the NAS communicates with the main server (hosting Chevereto) via FTP access, so when there are requests for images stored in the NAS, the main server will act as a frontend and retrieve the files from the backend which in this case is the NAS via FTP. As you mentioned, the bottleneck might be the simultaneous files upload but since image files take up few kbs, the simultaneous queue should be cleared quite fast with the FTP protocol. There are 2 other image hosting scripts which are utilizing FTP access for multi-server feature but I do not know how efficient they are.
NAS <---------> Main Server --------> Internet (public)
NAS <---------> Main Server --------> Internet (public)
Yes, I know that the flow must be like that. Thing is the limitations and use FTP is quite easy but how good will be the service? That is the issue.
Mostly systems that rely on FTP do this because is easy to code it for the developer but the quality of the system is pretty poor. In Chevereto I have high quality standars and for the multiservers I will create a state of the art implementation and in the past I've notice issues when you push FTP to simultaneus task even for the same persistent connection.
Honestly the only thing that I know about the NAS servers is that they are some sort of network storage servers to easily store and retrieve data in a network. I don't know if they can run Apache or any other tpe of HTTP server, I don't know if they are only suitable for LAN or anything further. I still believe that the best thing should be some sort of use this NAS as a network drive directly attached to your HTTP server.
Mostly systems that rely on FTP do this because is easy to code it for the developer but the quality of the system is pretty poor. In Chevereto I have high quality standars and for the multiservers I will create a state of the art implementation and in the past I've notice issues when you push FTP to simultaneus task even for the same persistent connection.
Honestly the only thing that I know about the NAS servers is that they are some sort of network storage servers to easily store and retrieve data in a network. I don't know if they can run Apache or any other tpe of HTTP server, I don't know if they are only suitable for LAN or anything further. I still believe that the best thing should be some sort of use this NAS as a network drive directly attached to your HTTP server.
these are the 2 image hosting scripts that I mentioned, one of them make use of FTP protocol while the other one I am not too sure.
http://codecanyon.net/item/imgshot-image-hosting-script/2558257
http://yabsoft.com/aihs-feature.php
http://codecanyon.net/item/imgshot-image-hosting-script/2558257
http://yabsoft.com/aihs-feature.php
Like I said, FTP perhaps is good for them but not enough for my standards because it doesn't balance anything. Perhaps I can add some sort of "storage" server type in the multiservers for those that still believe in that prehistoric solutions but is totally worthless because at the end of the day you will have 5 storage servers and still just one server handling all the image processing and that will be your bottle neck and it will mean more money lost for you because the load is more expensive than the storage.
The multiserver setup that I've in mind can be build up with cheap servers able to run PHP that will dramatically lower the load. Sadly the FTP (or only storage) servers doesn't help in this but I know that some people perhaps only have this option and since is easy to setup I will implement it but just to screw the competition and have two options.
that will be great cuz most cheap servers allocate a limited amount of storage space, I know you can scale with multi-server but most of the people do not have the deep pockets to deploy tens or hundreds of servers just for the extra storage spaces and it is a monthly commitment if you were to run a sizable site so a NAS being a one-off investment should be comfortable for most.
- Status