> Distributed systems and write arbitration on the same file are still terra incognita.
That's far too aggressive a response for someone who's being sloppy with terminology themselves. "Distributed" covers many different scales. You also use "clustering filesystem" as though it's a synonym, which it very much is not. Among those who have actually built both, like me, distributed and cluster filesystems are very different things. It's fine if you think "true" distributed systems means global scale, but if you're not even explicit (let alone correct) about it you should hardly be condemning others for using definitions closer to general usage. And you definitely shouldn't be pretending to read people's minds with claims about what they "gave no thought" to or "have no idea" about.
P.S. Since I can't reply to your comment below which was quite rightly flagged into oblivion, no, I didn't have anything to do with GFS.
That's far too aggressive a response for someone who's being sloppy with terminology themselves. "Distributed" covers many different scales. You also use "clustering filesystem" as though it's a synonym, which it very much is not. Among those who have actually built both, like me, distributed and cluster filesystems are very different things. It's fine if you think "true" distributed systems means global scale, but if you're not even explicit (let alone correct) about it you should hardly be condemning others for using definitions closer to general usage. And you definitely shouldn't be pretending to read people's minds with claims about what they "gave no thought" to or "have no idea" about.
P.S. Since I can't reply to your comment below which was quite rightly flagged into oblivion, no, I didn't have anything to do with GFS.