As one of the authors of this project, first off, I appreciate the interest.
For those who are curious, our initial goal is indeed to build a PoC and understand whether the data structures actually deliver the potential performance gains in a realistic implementation that one might expect on paper. I see a long arc from a new idea to a production-quality implementation, and several iterations of increasingly thorough evaluation and hardening.
Our current prototype is not production-ready; this is a long-term goal, but we appreciate how much work this is. More of our focus at the moment is on exploring other ways these algorithmic techniques may be useful in a storage system or how to address current problems---i.e., understanding the best way to design such a system before trying to build a production-quality version. Each of our papers has yielded significant overhauls to the design.
We would also consider it a success if other file systems adopted any ideas from our papers, or a new file system were designed by someone else that adopted these techniques.
The commenters are right that there is a gap between when an idea is exciting new research and fundable via grants versus funding the "maturing" phase of the prototype. I will hasten to say that the NSF has been supportive of maturing this system, for which we are most grateful. Nonetheless, like many projects, we could use more resources, and I would be happy to engage constructive conversations out-of-band about how to address this gap.
Since you're answering questions here, what is the impact of the patents on the fractal tree for other implimentations? Are other projects legally allowed to implement their own fractal/B^epsilon trees?
(This comment was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404038 but I've detached it so that more people will see it—the other thread has been moderated since it's a tedious flamewar.)
For those who are curious, our initial goal is indeed to build a PoC and understand whether the data structures actually deliver the potential performance gains in a realistic implementation that one might expect on paper. I see a long arc from a new idea to a production-quality implementation, and several iterations of increasingly thorough evaluation and hardening.
Our current prototype is not production-ready; this is a long-term goal, but we appreciate how much work this is. More of our focus at the moment is on exploring other ways these algorithmic techniques may be useful in a storage system or how to address current problems---i.e., understanding the best way to design such a system before trying to build a production-quality version. Each of our papers has yielded significant overhauls to the design.
We would also consider it a success if other file systems adopted any ideas from our papers, or a new file system were designed by someone else that adopted these techniques.
The commenters are right that there is a gap between when an idea is exciting new research and fundable via grants versus funding the "maturing" phase of the prototype. I will hasten to say that the NSF has been supportive of maturing this system, for which we are most grateful. Nonetheless, like many projects, we could use more resources, and I would be happy to engage constructive conversations out-of-band about how to address this gap.