AFAIK it was never released, and it used FUSE, it wasn’t native.

Just going by the submitted article, it seems very similar in what it achieves, but seems to be implemented slightly differently. As I recall the DelphiX solution did not use a character device to communicate with the user-space S3 service, and it relied on a local NVMe backed write cache to make 16kB blocks performant by coalescing them into large objects (10 MB IIRC).

This solution instead seems to rely on using 1MB blocks and store those directly as objects, alleviating the intermediate caching and indirection layer. Larger number of objects but less local overhead.

DelphiX's rationale for 16 kB blocks was that their primary use-case was PostgreSQL database storage. I presume this is geared for other workloads.

And, importantly since we're on HN, DelphiX's user-space service was written in Rust as I recall it, this uses Go.

I've got a massive storage server built that I want to run s3 protocol on it. It's already running ZFS. This is exactly what I want.

zfs-share already implements SMB and NFS.

> Why would I use it for s3?

You have it the wrong way around. Here, ZFS uses many small S3 objects as the storage substrate, rather than physical disks. The value proposition is that this should be definitely cheaper and perhaps more durable than EBS.

See s3backer, a FUSE implementation of similar: https://github.com/archiecobbs/s3backer

See prior in kernel ZFS work by Delphix which AFAIK was closed by Delphix management: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opW9KhjOQ3Q

BTW this appears to be closed too!

  EBS limitations:
  - Per-instance throughput caps
  - Pay for full provisioned capacity whether filled or not

 S3:
  - Pay only for what you store
  - No per-instance bandwidth limits as long as you have network optimized instance

Yup. IIRC low queue depth random Reads are king for desktop usage

It is all part of ZFS architecture with two tiers: - Special vdev (SSD): All metadata + small blocks (configurable threshold, typically <128KB) - Object storage: Bulk data only If the workload is randomized 4K small data blocks - that's SSD latency, not S3 latency.

I know my missing something, but can't figure out: why not just one device?

ZeroFS doesn't exploit ZFS strengths with no native ZFS support, just an afterthought with NBD + SlateDB LSM Good for small burst workloads where everything kept it in memory for LSM batch writes. Once compaction hits all bets off with performance and not sure about crash consistency since it is playing with fire. ZFS special vdev + ZIL on ssd is much safer. No need for LSM. MayaNAS ZFS metadata at SSD speed and large blocks get throughput from high latency S3 at network speed.

Quite probably should work just fine.

The secret is that ZFS actually implements an object storage layer on top of block devices and only then implements ZVOL and ZPL (ZFS POSIX filesystem) on top of that.

A "zfs send" is essentially a serialized stream of objects sorted by dependency (objects later in stream will refer to objects earlier in stream, but not the other way around).

Yes, this is a core use case ZFS fits nicely. See slide 31 "Multi-Cloud Data Orchestration" in the talk.

Not only backup but also DR site recovery.

  The workflow:

  1. Server A (production): zpool on local NVMe/SSD/HD
  2. Server B (same data center): another zpool backed by objbacker.io → remote object storage (Wasabi, S3, GCS)
  3. zfs send from A to B - data lands in object storage

  Key advantage: no continuously running cloud VM. You're just paying for object storage (cheap) not compute (expensive). Server B is in your own data center - it can be a VM too.

For DR, when you need the data in cloud:

  - Spin up a MayaNAS VM only when needed
  - Import the objbacker-backed pool - data is already there
  - Use it, then shut down the VM

    zfs send -R localpool@[snapshot] | zfs recv -F objbackerpool

ZFS-Lustre operates this way.

Main issue with opening it further is lack of DMU-level userland API, especially given how syscall heavy it could get (and iouring might be locked out due to politics)

For RDBMS pages on object storage - you might be thinking of Neon.tech. They built a custom page server for PostgreSQL that stores pages directly on S3.

There was some work on this presented at one of the OpenZFS summits. However it never got submitted. Not sure if it remains a private feature or if they hit some roadblocks.

In theory it should be a pretty good match considering internally ZFS is an object store.