Btrfs devel - Mar 2011 - stratified B-trees

I just noticed this out today on the arXiv : http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1103.4282 
The paper describes "stratified B-trees" and quoting from the
abstract:

"
We describe the `stratified B-tree'', which beats the CoW B-tree in
every way.
In particular, it is the first versioned dictionary to achieve optimal 
tradeoffs between space, query and update performance. Therefore, we believe 
there is no longer a good reason to use CoW B-trees for versioned data stores.
"

The paper mentions that a company called "Acunu" is developing an 
implementation.  

Are these stratified B-trees something which the btrfs project could use?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Karn Kallio <tierpluspluslists@gmail.com> writes:
> Are these stratified B-trees something which the btrfs project could use?
The current b*tree is pretty much hardcoded in the disk format, so it 
would be hard to change in a compatible way.

-Andi
-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Karn Kallio
<tierpluspluslists@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just noticed this out today on the arXiv :
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1103.4282
> The paper describes "stratified B-trees" and quoting from the
abstract:
>

LOL.
It looks like this paper is generated by a robot:

"... Stratified B-trees don’t need block-size tuning, unlike B-trees.
One major advantage is that they are naturally good candidates for
SSDs – the Intel X25M can perform 35,000 random 4K reads/s,
but must write in units of many MBs in order to fully utilise its performance.
This massive asymmetry in block size makes life very hard..."

How do you like:
"to utilise performance",
"massive asymmetry in block size"..

> "
> We describe the `stratified B-tree'', which beats the CoW B-tree in
every way.
> In particular, it is the first versioned dictionary to achieve optimal
> tradeoffs between space, query and update performance. Therefore, we
believe
> there is no longer a good reason to use CoW B-trees for versioned data
stores.
> "
>
> The paper mentions that a company called "Acunu" is developing an
> implementation.
>
> Are these stratified B-trees something which the btrfs project could use?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html