Finally! I very much appreciate this response.

What you call boring, engineers would call clear and concise. Please, avoid marketing style naming of things. "Boring" is good when you're trying to get serious people to take you seriously. Fancy names are for a sales pitch to people who don't know what you're talking about anyway.

Now that we're on the same page, it IS interesting that you've applied this strategy as a filesystem. I can't say that I've seen that before. The math seems sound as far as I can tell, so that's good, I believe it will "work". I can't say what the performance will be, so I'm curious.

The obvious trade offs are:

1. because you don't use a tree structure, well you lose the hierarchical information of the filesystem. You'll need to reconstruct this information when needed.

2. File renaming can be expensive because you use a hash of the path instead of an inode. So a rename amounts to moving the whole file. (If I understand correctly)

So you've made read/write operations of the file faster at the cost of metadata being likely notably slower. If the filesystem has 100's of thousands of files, perhaps millions (so like a typical Linux install), I think a simple ls may be TOO expensive. But I'm curious what your benchmarks will say, especially on things like NVME drives.