On 27.12.2010 02:04, Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 01:30:05AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
An FS could easily have the rest of the functions of a database
management system (DBMS) as an FSDB, a hybrid if you wish. An
example for such a hybrid is the ext2/3-sqlite FS...
What are you talking about? If you mean creating a sqlite database on
top of an existing file system, sure that works fine.
No, I don't mean this.
That's the
right solution. But if you mean trying to access sqllite via a
file-system interface (i.e., via FUSE),
No, I don't mean this. I mean taking out the FUSE and do it directly.
I suspect the result will be a
disaster, precisely because the file system API isn't expressive
enough to handle database functionality, and so the result ends up
being a performance disaster.
Three times wrong:
Firstly, the result won't be a disaster.
Secondly, I already said in the e-mail before that file system API will
be extended by this additional database functionality, which is just
only a little architectural problem.
Thirdly, it won't end up in a performance disaster.
So the answer is "use a database, using
a database API, if you have database requirements".
No, I won't.
Furthermore, the performance of Oracle's solutions was and still is
so low, because they have a file system as a database that is
managed by a DBMS as a file that again is stored in an FS. Can you
see now what does the loss of performance?
It was a disaster from a performance perspective even if the database
was run on top of a raw block device....
Yes, for sure. So what?
And Oracle fears FSs like R4 that have database(-like)
functionalities, so it took those technical features of R4 for the
BTRFS, which they thought could stop its show.
And also, Oracle has started some months ago again to promote its FS
in a DB in an FS concept.
I've never heard of the R4 file system, and apparently Google hasn't
either. But if you think BTRFS is a database, you're fooling
yourself. There's a lot more to a database than just using a b-tree.
I'm sorry, because I was really thinking that you do know that R4 is
used as the short term for the file system Reiser4.
And no, I'm not fooling, because I don't think that BTRFS is a
database. I only said that Oracle took technical parts of Reiser4 like a
b-tree datastructure and some other parts as a show stopper.
So, there must be something that is highly interesting with the idea
to use an FS as DBMS, not only for Oracle, but at least for the four
largest software companies.
No, I think you're just utterly confused from a technical perspective.
No, I'm not utterly confused from a technical perspective. You really
have a wrong impression.
And if you read above again, then you will see that I already said that
Oracle has started once again the promotion of its concept with an FS in
a DB in an FS (this thing that you described as a performance disaster
even running on a raw block device). Do you claim that Oracle doesn't do
this?
I'm sorry, but I do believe Oracle, Microsoft and Apple more than you.
- Ted
Christian Stroetmann
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
