New feature: add "blocksize" mount option for block-oriented persistence

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Request to implement a "blocksize" mount option as described in this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/s3fs-devel/browse_thread/thread/ae05dbcef459610c

Additional thoughts:

- s3fs caching mechanism would have to be generalized to support blocks as
well as entire files.

- Worth considering trying to preserve the ordering of block writes (even
though S3 doesn't guarantee readers will see that same ordering) to
minimize potential problems with journaling file systems mounted via loopback.

- Being able to mount an S3-backed file via loopback means you can have the
filesystem be encrypted using normal Linux encrypted file system techniques.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by margaret...@gmail.com on 10 Jun 2008 at 2:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Since no action has been taken on this item in over two years, I think that it 
is safe to assume that no action ever will be taken.

Additionally, Mr. Cobbs is actively developing a block-based S3 file system 
which addresses this issue: http://code.google.com/p/s3backer/

I haven't used s3backer so I can't comment on the pros and/or cons.  s3fs will 
continue to be file-based for the foreseeable future.  Closing out this old 
issue.

If someone wishes to take this one on, please feel free to re-open or create a 
new issue. 

Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com on 27 Dec 2010 at 9:45

• Changed state: WontFix
• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect