This is exactly what I needed - not a lot of people are doing eventually inconsistent databases yet. If theres a network partition, shits probably fucked anyways so its best to throw away all your data.
Unfortunately the metadata (list of files) is stored in memory, not network. Not quite as unreliable as I would like.
Eventually inconsistent databases could save a lot of the effort developers faced with databases without inconsistency guarantees put into implementing eventual inconsistency at the application level.
This reminds me of delay line memory, storing information in the echo of a sound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory . LEO had long tubes of mercury for this, not sure I would have wanted to work in that office.
I think very few bits here are actually stored in-flight on the copper/fiber/radio at any time. Most of them are probably stored in various buffers of networking equipment (which are ordinary semiconductor RAM). It would be interesting to see someone do an actual breakdown for, say, a transatlantic link.
My gut feeling says that only geostationary satellite links have any significant number of bits in-flight.
Very simplified, but assuming a 5000 km cable and 300 000 km/s speed of light (is slightly slower in fiber), light needs 0.01666... seconds for that. At 10 Gbit/s (fairly slow), that'd mean ~ 166 Mbit or ~ 20 Megabyte in flight. (I hope I didn't forget a factor 1000 somewhere)
Your calculation makes sense. However, for those 20 MB in flight, how much data is stored in buffers? I think that could be approximated by comparing ping time with speed of light.
e.g. if a 5000 km long link at 10 Gbit/s has latency of 0.0166 s, then you have zero buffering. If you have latency of 0.2 s, then around 2 Gbit of data must be stored in buffers somewhere, making 20 MB in flight only 1% of all data stored in such a ping filesystem.
In a small toroidally shaped universe, your radio is also your memory. All emissions eventually return to their origin, but you can reorder memory transmissions by moving while the data is in flight.
Actually, Engineering Research Associates (predecessor of Univac) built a CPU with mercury delay line memory using acoustic transducers to create a shift register. It did bit-serial binary arithmetic. You could get two logic gates or one latch out of a dual pentode, so a bit-serial ALU could fit easily in a single rack.
I'm not familiar with the overall architecture, though, unfortunately. I do remember having to do a most-significant-bit first, bit-serial, two's complement adder as a homework assignment that was inspire by the machine.
Of course the gut reaction to this is "why?" and the obvious answer is "because I can"... that's fine, but there's been plenty of filesystems built on protocols or things that weren't really supposed to be filesystems.
I remember way back when gmail first announced giving away 1GB of storage, there were a bunch of hacky things to turn SMTP into a real filesystem.
So, I get the answer to "why make this weird filesystem", but I'd really like to know: why is this weird filesystem, weirder or more intriguing than the others that have come before it.
I get your sentiment in general but... you're upset because a tool for storing files in IMCP pings isn't available on your OS? Poor you, where else are you going to keep your files!
Well, it's not merited, and you're being rude. I'm saying this as someone who references the POSIX standard several times a week to ensure portability. This kind of tool is a toy project and is by its nature highly dependent on non-portable interfaces.
If you’re against GNU and Linux like I am then it is very much merited.
I utterly fail to see how being honest and direct by expressing my irritation is rude and am both insulted and appalled by what I perceive to be the Anglo-Saxon definition of rude hoisted upon me. I could just as easily turn this around and say that your lack of consideration for what is a different value system is just as rude. The entire argument around “rudeness” is nonsense, I’m not at all sorry to write.
Buddy, I hate GNU and Linux as much as you do. More, probably. You and I are on the same side here. You can either continue to attempt to extract yourself from me into a special class of person for which your behavior is supposedly acceptable, or take a good look at yourself and decide to be better in the future.
Unfortunately the metadata (list of files) is stored in memory, not network. Not quite as unreliable as I would like.