This was really thought provoking — it made me realize that Git just happens to use a filesystem for persistence, but doesn’t necessarily have to. A POSIX filesystem might not even be the best way to store a git repo. Makes me wonder: what else could speak Git + POSIX? Redis? Postgres? IPFS is a fun one — it’s already content addressed.
replyIf you want to store a git repo on S3, you can that with git-annex[1] today. It can do client side encryption and large files as well.
replyCame here for a five-gallon bucket hooked to Dulwich (archiving rain?), Slightly disappointed :)
replyGo Git and Dulwich and friends are indeed fun tech.
Most of the pain here is the typical set of issues people run into trying to make S3 a filesystem as-is, common with S3FS-family approaches.
replyZeroFS (https://github.com/Barre/zerofs) is 9P/NFS/NBD over S3 on an LSM. Point stock go-git, or just /usr/bin/git, at a mount and skip the gymnastics. Rename is a metadata op in the keyspace, so you get it atomic on any S3—no Tigris-specific X-Tigris-Rename needed.
Different point on the spectrum, but less square-peg, also most probably much, much faster (it works great on linux-sized repos) :)
I wouldn’t call it gymnastics. The surprising part of the article was that Git itself is an object store that happens to use a filesystem for persistence, but an S3 bucket might actually be more suitable than a .git directory on POSIX.
replyAuthor of the article here. I'm aware of ZeroFS and other similar approaches (such as something internal at Tigris that will become public at a later date), this was more of an experiment to see how far you can get with stuff I already had "on the shelf". I am going to be improving this a fair bit; I just need to plan out what I'm gonna work on and figure out the best times to stream it, etc.
reply