"please do not innovate, we have filesystems for 40 years and this is how you store your data"
Please don't put words in my mouth like that. It's damn rude. I never said anything that was even close.
"S3 also supports nested directories no biggie here."
Not according to the API documentation I've seen. There are buckets, and there are objects within buckets. Nothing about buckets within buckets. Sure, there are umpteen different ways to simulate nested directories using various naming conventions recognized by an access library, but there's no standard and thus no compatibility. You also lose some of the benefits of true nested directories, such as combining permissions across different levels of the hierarchy. Also no links (hard or soft) which many people find useful, etc. Your claim here is misleading at best.
"last time I checked S3 had an extensive security"
Yes, it has its very own permissions system, fundamentally incompatible with any other and quite clunky to use. That still doesn't answer the question of how you'd do anything like SELinux with it.
Open up your bug list and we can have that conversation. Throwing stones from behind a proprietary wall is despicable.
"you can tell me if I am wrong but if you would like to access the same files on these nodes using a FS than you are going to end up with a locking hell."
You're wrong. Maybe you've only read about distributed file systems (or databases which have to deal with similar problems) from >15 years ago, but things have changed a bit since then. In fact, if you were at Amazon you might have heard of a little thing called Dynamo which was part of that evolution. Modern distributed systems, including distributed file systems, don't have that locking hell. That's just FUD.
"I don't see huge market for a distributed FS."
Might want to tell that to the EFS team. Let me know how that goes. In fact you might be right, but whether there's a market has little to do with your pseudo-technical objections. Many technologies are considered uncool long before they cease being useful.
Please don't put words in my mouth like that. It's damn rude. I never said anything that was even close.
"S3 also supports nested directories no biggie here."
Not according to the API documentation I've seen. There are buckets, and there are objects within buckets. Nothing about buckets within buckets. Sure, there are umpteen different ways to simulate nested directories using various naming conventions recognized by an access library, but there's no standard and thus no compatibility. You also lose some of the benefits of true nested directories, such as combining permissions across different levels of the hierarchy. Also no links (hard or soft) which many people find useful, etc. Your claim here is misleading at best.
"last time I checked S3 had an extensive security"
Yes, it has its very own permissions system, fundamentally incompatible with any other and quite clunky to use. That still doesn't answer the question of how you'd do anything like SELinux with it.
"File system durability: yes it is very important, this why I was kind of shocked about this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/317781/...
Open up your bug list and we can have that conversation. Throwing stones from behind a proprietary wall is despicable.
"you can tell me if I am wrong but if you would like to access the same files on these nodes using a FS than you are going to end up with a locking hell."
You're wrong. Maybe you've only read about distributed file systems (or databases which have to deal with similar problems) from >15 years ago, but things have changed a bit since then. In fact, if you were at Amazon you might have heard of a little thing called Dynamo which was part of that evolution. Modern distributed systems, including distributed file systems, don't have that locking hell. That's just FUD.
"I don't see huge market for a distributed FS."
Might want to tell that to the EFS team. Let me know how that goes. In fact you might be right, but whether there's a market has little to do with your pseudo-technical objections. Many technologies are considered uncool long before they cease being useful.