[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject(reiserfs) Re: File systems are semantically impoverished compared to database

I don't see why it is any more in RAM than any other pointers which
might or might not be in ram. Layering of pointers necessarily
increases the depth of the tree that must be traversed by more than log
N. As such, it is inherently inferior to an unlayered single unified
Balanced Tree solution (ala reiserfs).

Albert was directly on point, as I understand it.


Horst von Brand writes:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" <> said:
> > Theodore Y. Ts'o writes:
> > >> From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <>
> > >> No, not like that at all. Structured storage adds an extra allocation
> > >> and namespace layer above the filesystem. This works in userspace,
> > >> but the performance is poor.
> > > I'm not convinced this has to be the case (that performance will be
> > > poor).
> > For now, every app with this problem has to implement something like
> > a growable (and hopefully shrinkable) filesystem within a file.
> > Apps can add a block mapping layer complete with triple-indirect
> > blocks, or they can copy around huge amounts of data and update
> > document references as needed.
> Come on, that is done in RAM, not on disk.
> --
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand
> Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
> Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
> Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.152 / U:8.384 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site