-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 05 June 2003 04:47, Trevor Lauder wrote: > A carefully > designed implementation should be more reliable then our current systems, > and offer less overhead.
how so? assuming that the database approach means an extra layer between the inodes on disk and requests for those files, how is this of any benefit to, say, apache? > Being able to search and index a global database > will be a great advantage to people trying to harness the power of things > like PHP/SQL. again, how so? if you are doing full text indexing of a large number of documents, sure, i can see that. or if you are providing a song downloading service, sure. it let's you cut out the middle man (the SQL database) which is a good thing. but if you are already using a RDBMs for your data, or your data isn't structured or doesn't have any need for further structuring, i don't see the point. note that i'm obviously not saying that approaches like what ReiserFS wants to become are useless, just that i don't know if they are a great general purpose solution. actually, i should say that Reiser's concept of filesystem plugins is an excellent concept since it allows one to scale the FS up or down the scale of "metadata enabled". > > i think there is a large place for both and those saying otherwise have a > > vested interest. > > I'm not sure what you are accusing me of here, but I have no vested > interest in database filesystems. i was actually refering to Reiser, Oracle and Microsoft, not you =) - -- Aaron J. Seigo GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE: The 'K' is for 'kick ass' http://www.kde.org http://promo.kde.org/3.1/feature_guide.php -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+39vx1rcusafx20MRAhmiAJ4oPLVIn9DJqjWVnYuW//YwWoUt0wCfRKfa y0PnuBZtSqQ0E9wH4u8M3D0= =jXLn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
