'Storage' to Replace Traditional Filesystems? 599
JigSaw writes "OSNews is reporting on Storage, an innovative project which aims to replace the traditional hierarchical filesystems with a new document store which is database-based (PostgreSQL). The current implementation, built under Gnome 2.x for now, offers natural language access, network transparency, and a number of other features. The project is currently in alpha (screenshots already available), and it is part of the next major generation of Gnome. It is currently developed by Seth Nickell, the person responsible for the enhanced Gnome usability on 2.x and its HIG, among other things."
Windows? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Windows? (Score:2, Informative)
Why don't these people just put some effort in reiserFS?
Windows' filesystem (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ahead of the game. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Windows' filesystem (Score:4, Informative)
Limitations in the home edition (Score:5, Informative)
What then happens to SQL as a MS product? If its built in to every OS, why then would anyone buy it.
Remember how Windows XP Home and Pro editions can serve files only to less than a dozen simultaneous clients? This is to boost sales of the IIS bundled with Windows 2000 Server and now Windows Server 2003. Microsoft SQL Server Home Edition will probably be limited.
AS400 did this 20 years ago: (Score:5, Informative)
Not SQL Server Directly (Score:5, Informative)
Many database servers already have some fairly optimized code when it comes to file access. This just implements it at the kernel level, rather than having it sit on top of a traditional fs.
BeFS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Natural language interface? Hmm... (Score:1, Informative)
that's the sql generated by the natural language processor.
Oracel IFS (Score:4, Informative)
Versioning and various other metadata existed. It could be exported via SMB, NFS, FTP, and as a regular "local" windows filesystem.
And, why is this such a great big deal? I don't see the same stink raised as the possibility of Longhorn having a DB for a filesystem.
Re:Why link directly againsat libpq? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ext3 + sql (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a place to store config files or cronned shell scripts which have definitive locations and content.
This is a replacement for that 5TB corporate filestore with a 50 directory hierarchy that nobody can figure out, and a content based find takes days to complete.
Re:Windows' filesystem (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly (Score:5, Informative)
"The oft-misunderstood Windows Future Storage (WinFS), which will include technology from the "Yukon" release of SQL Server, is not a file system," reports Thurrot. "Instead, WinFS is a service that runs on top of - and requires - NTFS."
Re:Obvious advantages (Score:2, Informative)
going OT: library organizational schemes (Score:2, Informative)
Just as each of us has our own organizational scheme for our own bookshelves, libraries tend to vary more than we think too.
Just about every school and community library you'll find uses Dewey Decimal, of course, but others have other schemes.
For instance: the Library of Congress, in order to conserve space on their shelves, orders their books by size. (No, I'm not kidding. Look it up.) The directory is computerized, of course, so aside from the inconvenience of having same-topic volumes wildly separated in space, it's not a big deal for them.
SQL Server Desktop Engine (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obvious advantages (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Windows' filesystem (Score:2, Informative)
why the relational model is not right (Score:5, Informative)
Hans
Re:Ah yes, the infamous relational filesystem... (Score:1, Informative)
But with the relational system, you could also browse it other ways. Want to implement Gelernter's Lifestreams? Just ignore the hierarchies and sort your entire filesystem by date.
You wouldn't want to force users to run sql queries, but you could easily implement more advanced views in your file manager...and make adhoc queries available for users who are up to it.
Re:so is everyone copying BeOS (Score:3, Informative)
No!
When Codd created the relational model, there wasn't the current Unix filesystem idea... the relational model was always intended to store data, and files are data.
System R, SQL and DB2 prototype, was intended to be the basis for IBM FS.
IBM realised this in OS/400, which being proprietary hasn't the influence it deserves.
MS also wanted Jet to be the building block of its OSs since its inception, that is, sometime before MS Access release.
Sorry, but NewDocMS is based on SQLite, which is typeless and but a library... simply not good enough to be attractive. Storage is based on PostgreSQL, the real thing, and aims high.
Re:Obvious advantages (Score:3, Informative)
Amen, brother! You just can't rely on metadata stored separately from the file itself. If I ZIP a file, or transfer it via XMODEM, or copy it onto an obsolete FAT-formatted floppy, that file should retain all it needs to be usable.
Some metadata is bound to be lost, such as its modification time or even its filename. If you can afford to lose this sort of metadata, then go ahead and store it separately. But if the file can't afford to lose this stuff you'd better make sure it's part of the data, not just the metadata. It'd better transfer intact when I send the file serially or copy it to and from a legacy filesystem.
Re:Journalling? (Score:1, Informative)
Comments from Seth (aka Storage's designer) (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose it is probably too late to inject comments and have them moderated to the point of visibility as the madness has largely subsided... but here's to futile acts ;-) I was not really intending Storage to make a big splash right now, I wanted to keep it low-key, but I guess the damage is done so I might as well comment. I'm sorry that I didn't have time to put up a more technically-oriented exposition of Storage. *shrug*
Some technical notes... that site is sparse on technical information so I'll fill in some for the curious.
Re:BeFS - further BeFS reading (Score:2, Informative)
Practical File System Design with the Be File System [amazon.com]
by Dominic Giampaolo, Be Inc, Dimonic Giampaolo
1. Nice overview of various filesystem's in use.
2. Quick and to the point.
3. Enough detail to go about rolling one up yourself.
4. Being written by Dominic it provides nice BeFS insights.