well, the database could reside on another file system. So the
database based file system could be a secondary file system but
provide more features and better performance. I am not saying that
database-based file system must be the only filesystem on the system.
On 3/19/06, Mikado <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Where is that database located, on other filesystem or on database-based
> filesystem?
>
> Xin Zhao wrote:
> > I was wondering why only few file system uses database to store file
> > system metadata. Here, metadata primarily refers to directory entries.
> > For example, one can setup a database to store file pathname, its
> > inode number, and some extended attribution. File pathname can be used
> > as primary key. As such, we can achieve pathname to inode mapping as
> > well as many other features such as fast search and extended file
> > attribute management. In contrast, storing file system entries in
> > directory files may result in slow dentry search. I guess that's why
> > ReiserFS and some other file systems proposed to use B+ tree like
> > strucutre to manage file entries. But why not simple use database to
> > provide the same feature? DB has been heavily optimized to provide
> > fast search and should be good at managing metadata.
> >
> > I guess one concern about this idea is performance impact caused by
> > database system. I ran a test on a mysql database: I inserted about
> > 1.2 million such kind of records into an initially empty mysql
> > database. Average insertion rate is about 300 entries per second,
> > which is fast enough to handle normal file system burden, I think. I
> > haven't try the query speed, but I believe it should be fast enough
> > too (maybe I am wrong, if so, please point that out.).
> >
> > Then I am a little curious why only few people use database to store
> > file system metadata, although I know WinFS plans to use database to
> > manage metadata. I guess one reason is that it is difficult for kernel
> > based file system driver to access database. But this could be
> > addressed by using efficient kernel/user communication mechanism.
> > Another reason could be the worry about database system. If database
> > system crashes, file system will stop functioning too. However, the
> > feature needed by file system is really a small part of database
> > system, A reduced database system should be sufficient to provide this
> > feature and be stable enough to support a file system.
> >
> > Can someone point out more issues that could become obstables to using
> > database to manage metadata for a file system?
> >
> > Many thanks!
> > Xin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEHOceNWc9T2Wr2JcRAsKKAJ9t1fRZ1xczAaeruDUqTNeLMcGuiwCfeTNt
> 31pFUK79Q7BE1AptbmNqr9Q=
> =LbiF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
