Hacker News Reader

> I'm not sure. I think it will be a little while yet before we sort out which layer is the right place for all the different parts of the problem of "storage." ZFS has gone down the path of putting everything in the FS. Other folks are putting in a different set of things. It's pretty clear that some of the functionality that existed in BFS does not belong in the FS.

Now that's wisdom.

View on HN

I do wish he'd gone in to more detail though!

I imagine the extended attrs and db would be amazing for app devs, but probably wouldn't see much use in the real world because it ties your application to the file system. But what else?

Tying your app to the fs isn’t that bad if the fs is flexible and portable enough such as zfs having the ability to use plain files.

Doesn’t seem much worse than tying it to a particular database or API

my first response was 'but filesystems live on the disk' while databases are simply to set up in userspace. but then i realized that with FUSE and filesystem-image files and the right tooling the same flexibility can be achieved, and also, on the other side high performant databases want to live on the raw disk to be in full control of the write process to disk.

what remains is that the difference between a filesystem and a database is the API used to talk to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com