Feeds

For its next trick, Inktank tries to pull golden rabbit from Ceph hat

Just how do you make people pay for an open-source filesystem?

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

You'd think being a core part of Linux would be a good thing for a filesystem, but if you want to make any money off it, things get tricky.

To get round this problem, the company behind the Ceph filesystem, Inktank, announced today that it hopes to bag cash from the distributed object-storage technology by offering support, analytics, and a cluster manager called Calamari atop the system, via a paid-for distro called Inktank Ceph Enterprise.

Ceph provides object, block, and file storage through its Reliable Autonomic Distributed Object Store (RADOS) technology.

Apps can interface with the cluster, and RADOS can scale to "thousands of client hosts or KVMs accessing petabytes to exabytes of data". The filesystem uses an algorithm called CRUSH to dynamically replicate, re-balance, and stripe data across nodes within Ceph clusters.

Ceph was integrated directly into the Linux kernel with the 2.6.34 release in 2010 and was embedded in Ubuntu in 2012, along with the LogFS system. Unlike rival GlusterFS, Ceph can be accessed on modern Linux installs without the need for abstractions such as Fuse, says Inktank's senior veep of product management Neil Levine.

The object store has S3 and Swift-compliant APIs so it can hook into cloud systems, the block device can deal with images of up to 16 exabytes, and the filesystem has POSIX-compliant semantics and can be used as a drop-in replacement for the Hadoop File System.

But, as we've said, all of this comes for free due to Ceph being open source, so how is Inktank going to make money from it?

First, by offering to paying punters a version of Ceph – not the latest version – that has been vigorously tested by Inktank, along with support services such as service-level agreements, bug escalation, hot patches, and roadmap input.

The company is also going to develop free plugins to other open-source technologies, such as OpenStack, and then potentially paid-for plugins for things such as Microsoft's Hyper-V.

"All of the storage functionality is going to be open source," he stressed. "We're not doing public pricing at the moment. It should be 1 to 5 cents per gig per month if you contract with us and choose the right hardware."

Inktank's customers include eBay, Huawei, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Zetta, AT&T and Deutsche Telekom. ®

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

More from The Register

next story
Ellison: Sparc M7 is Oracle's most important silicon EVER
'Acceleration engines' key to performance, security, Larry says
Oracle SHELLSHOCKER - data titan lists unpatchables
Database kingpin lists 32 products that can't be patched (yet) as GNU fixes second vuln
Lenovo to finish $2.1bn IBM x86 server gobble in October
A lighter snack than expected – but what's a few $100m between friends, eh?
Ello? ello? ello?: Facebook challenger in DDoS KNOCKOUT
Gets back up again after half an hour though
Hey, what's a STORAGE company doing working on Internet-of-Cars?
Boo - it's not a terabyte car, it's just predictive maintenance and that
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.