I'm okay if you batch writes, I'm okay if you offer a low-latency mode with less durability, but by being unclear about this it just feels like a scam.
I am very excited for object storage first systems like this to leverage low latency zonal storage for write ahead logs to keep the disaggregated storage but greatly reduce write latency. That ends up being more expensive, but is likely a good tradeoff in lots of cases I have seen
The front page lists under Capabilities:
> 4.8 > Honest fsync > A successful fsync means every acknowledged write is durable in S3. If a failover may have lost unflushed writes, the next fsync returns an error instead of a false success.
Someone else mentioned: "write() is buffered (that's the batching) and "committed" maps to fsync(), which returns only once data is durable."
---
It sounds like all writes are written synchronously to at least one node but failovers/replicas are just eventually consistent. If so, latency between nodes is not within ZeroFS's control and including. Or are you saying that the latency is impossible for even a single node? If so, that would mean much more than just a footnote is needed.
---
I don't see an issue with the benchmark but I might not be looking in the right place.
The [sequential writes](https://github.com/Barre/ZeroFS/blob/ec32199d48d0409d4cccd44...) and [append-only writes](https://github.com/Barre/ZeroFS/blob/ec32199d48d0409d4cccd44...) start where I'd expect and `success: true,` should equate to `fsync()` as previously mentioned.
(Apologies if I got this wrong, still learning this)