Very interesting find, that document was a good read. I agree with
@Patrick it would be good to have another alternative to ZFS (again a very happy, and active ZFS user). However I think it'll be an up hill battle in many respects.
Proving a file system is capable and reliable is no easy feat, and once developed it will definitely need some soak time before trusted for production. With the document *estimating* 1H 2018 for 1.0 and ZFS parity not arriving until 3.0 this would be a long ways off. At that time we run into another issue (this being the most important in my opinion) and that is drive size. It appears Strasis would stick to the RAID 0,1,5,6,10 concept and while it appears it will be elastic in growth/shrinking, it'll be using our historic parity methods. New VMFs need to be looking to erasure coding as that'll be important for reducing failure vulnerability. We'll be seeing this soon with
draid for ZFS (I'm looking forward to this greatly, working on getting this test code deployed in my devel space).
Lastly, they seem to state there will be less/little focus on performance in the "data tier" and the solution to performance is to throw flash at the problem, which is fine for small to medium deployments, but could be less optimal for the large scale deployments depending on how they implement things exactly and how it performs. I work in HPC storage, so the large scale is important to me (as we plan and build triple digit petabyte file systems now, and even bigger in the future). Until flash gets to be at a cost level with spinning rust, classic HDD will play a big roll in parallel file systems. While burst buffers are a huge thing, how well this would fill this need isn't certain and how well the fast tier can drain to the data tier will be a big factor on its viability.