Eikon
Joined 6 years ago
Karma
1,270
Submissions
495
Member since
Dec 12
Recent submissions
Comment · 4 months ago
Kind-of should work :)
Comment · 4 months ago
NFSv4 is a hard beast to implement correctly, with a lot of protocol surface (state, compound ops, delegations) for benefits ZeroFS mostly gets through 9P with extensions, over a much simpler protocol: https://www.zerofs.net/docs/9p-extensions. NFSv3 stayed in ZeroFS mostly for client compatibility.
Comment · 4 months ago
ZeroFS aims to be a POSIX filesystem, the semantics here are the standard ones (ext4, xfs behave the same): write() is buffered (that's the batching) and "committed" maps to fsync(), which returns only once data is durable.
Comment · 4 months ago
Thank you, appreciated!
Comment · 4 months ago
> I believe the first version of this required the metadata to be stored on the ZeroFS server, making HA kinda hard.
Metadata has always been in the bucket itself.
For HA, there's now a "replicated mode" if you want automatic failover:
Comment · 4 months ago
That's fair advice, thanks.
Comment · 4 months ago
Is it? :)
Ask me anything!
Comment · 4 months ago
Thank you for the feedback, the idea behind this was to say "We make claims that are backed by workflows you can verify". I'll improve the phrasing.
Comment · 4 months ago
Just a self hosted plausible instance :)