[Imustaskforhelp]

> I work on an AI agent (tasklet) and we give every agent a linux machine. Having durable storage that is cheap, fast and multi-tenant is really important for our product. NFS is a great protocol (if complicated), and object storage is just the cheapest. But making it fast and reliable is key.

Wouldn't 9fs/plan9fs be more suitable for this use case from my limited understanding though?

> Any use case for SlateDB that you are willing to pay more for less latency but keep disaggregated storage without another system.

I feel like IMO one of its benefits could be something like Figma/Google Docs alternative (Ironic considering that it would be running on google specific product but as you've mentioned in next point a potential support for AWS/Azure could also happen). I also found some use case within a live-streaming alternative in terms of how a live stream could add support for viewing things say a few seconds back. The current way seems to be much more messier than a simple s3. Though I feel like in any of these cases, pricing might be a factor.

I also find the use case that you shared really interesting as well. I wish you luck to see how that pans out and am looking forward for reading more technical pieces by you so keep publishing more and I am curious for more details as well.

There are so many interesting ideas when we combine s3 and databases. TigrisFS is taking an opposite approach to this by running filesystem on top of s3 on top of technically foundationDB whereas your approach/SlateDB essentially runs a DB on S3. It's fun to imagine both of these being used together and how both of these are approaching at somewhat of the same problem from completely different/opposite ways.

[rockwotj]

> Wouldn't 9fs/plan9fs be more suitable for this use case from my limited understanding though?

Can you elaborate on why? NFS is really a great protocol with a lot of tricks to reduce round trips

[Imustaskforhelp]

i can be wrong, I usually am and so I would like to know more but my rationale behind 9fs being better than NFS was that 9fs is a much simpler protocol in general and its philosophy also maps very neatly to what you are trying to achieve. The simplicity and overlapping ideas felt to me as something which could create an prototype much easier than on NFS which has its complexity issues.

> NFS is really a great protocol with a lot of tricks to reduce round trips

Oh, I didn't know that actually but makes sense given how NFS is used but are there any issues/limitations that you face when building things on top of NFS. I would love to know more :-D

[rockwotj]

9fs is better than NFSv3 but NFSv4 is a different beast and more powerful

Honestly the biggest limitation is its quite a big protocol and can be complicated, but I don’t see any major advantages you could do yourself protocolwise over a custom FUSE thing except for just simplification. In my case I am hoping the kernel client can save me a lot of work of building a good client