>I'm still unconvinced that *any* filesystem is the right way to store
>a dataset this huge. It sounds like the right thing to do is to
>design a way to access this data which actually addresses your
>problem, not to complain about lseek.
>
>Filesystems are for files, and the access methods (read, write, seek,
>etc) were designed with that in mind. Although I hate arbitrary
>restrictions as much as the next guy, I have trouble conceiving of an
>object larger than 2gb which I'd want to access like a file, and not
>like a database, or an image, or a stream, or something else.
>
> Marc
>
The second paragraph basically points out the issue. That
is, I can easily conceive of objects much larger than 2GB that
I want to treat precisely like any other file.
Granted, I also may want to put them in parallel databases for
purposes of high speed access, but the key point remains:
just cause they're large doesn't mean they're special.
Furthermore, for $5K, I can buy a workstation easily capable
of storage in the multiple gigabyte range. In a few
years, such machines will cost less than $1K, which is
accessible to very large markets.
Filesystems and operating systems need to isolate themselves,
if possible, from the dramatic changes that cheap mass storage
that we expect to see over the coming years. 64 bit processors
are not a requirement to handle these things, but 64 bit
file offsets may well be.
We can each argue till we are blue in the face, but there
continue to be several unescapable facts:
computers be getting faster
computers be getting cheaper
problems that can be solved on above computers are getting larger
people are inventing new problems (multimedia, etc)
My limited knowledge of mass storage technology indicates that
we haven't come close to hitting any fundamental bits/cubic
centimeter limits, nor are we about to for a few decades, at least.
Given that additional fact, listening to people argue about
2GB being "large" sounds to me no different than similar arguments
about an IBM XT with a "large" 10 MB hard disk, and 32 meg
partition limits.
My two cents worth, anyhow... I'll shut up now... (*:
Paul Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
