3 ms·
S3 is more of a simple key-value store than a full filesystem (and for good reason). I suspect the reason their docs push the filesystem metaphor so much is bec
by yid 11y ago
S3 is more of a simple key-value store than a full filesystem (and for good reason). I suspect the reason their docs push the filesystem metaphor so much is because filesystems are more familiar to many people, and most filesystem semantics can be implemented using a key-value store. In that sense, there is no update() or append() in S3, just a simple set().
- dheera 11y agoAlso, because AWS doesn't provide a decent networked file system where multiple instances can simultaneously mount the same volume at the same time in read/write mode. S3 is as close as one can get, in many cases.
- sciuto 11y agoWhat about EFS? (still in beta, essentially NFS) https://aws.amazon.com/efs/ https://aws.amazon.com/efs/
- objectivefs 11y agoYou can use our ObjectiveFS[1] if you want a networked file system where multiple instances can simultaneously mount it read/write. It is backed by S3 and gives you a standard POSIX interface. [1] https://objectivefs.com https://objectivefs.com
- dheera 11y agoThanks, interesting. Can you comment on how it compares to s3fs? I've used s3fs and it can sometimes be buggy (as in, to the point where files get clobbered and corrupted) and slow (especially in listing directories with a large number of files). Does ObjectiveFS solve these issues, and do you have any reliability statistics?