I think if you focus too narrowly on the details of the wire protocol, you’ll lose sight of the big picture and the semantics.
S3 is not a filesystem because the semantics are different from the kind of semantics we expect from filesystems. You can’t take the high-level API provided by a filesystem, use S3 as the backing storage, and expect to get good performance out of it unless you use a ton of translation.
Stuff like NFS or CIFS are filesystems. They behave like filesystems, in practice. You can rename files. You can modify files. You can create directories.
Right, the NFS/CIFS support writing blocks, but S3 basically does HTTP get and post verbs. I would say that these concepts are the defining difference. To call S3 a filesystem is not wrong in abstract, but it’s not different than calling Wordpress a filesystem, or DNS, or anything that stores something for you. Of course, it will be inefficient to implement a block write on top of any of these, that’s because you have to literally do it yourself. As in, download the file, edit it, upload again.
I think the blocks are one part of it, and the other part is that S3 doesn’t support renaming or moving objects, and doesn’t have directories (just prefixes). Whenever I’ve seen something with filesystem-like semantics on top of S3, it’s done by using S3 as a storage layer, and building some other kind of view of the storage on top using a separate index.
For example, maybe you have a database mapping file paths to S3 objects. This gives you a separate metadata layer, with S3 as the storage layer for large blocks of data.
S3 is not a filesystem because the semantics are different from the kind of semantics we expect from filesystems. You can’t take the high-level API provided by a filesystem, use S3 as the backing storage, and expect to get good performance out of it unless you use a ton of translation.
Stuff like NFS or CIFS are filesystems. They behave like filesystems, in practice. You can rename files. You can modify files. You can create directories.