Ive heard that WinFS is a filesystem that has some kind of database? I didnt understand the advantages because I havent read about it, but it is the best thing since sliced bread according to MS. My question is, because WinFS database is running on top of NTFS, could a similar thing be done for ZFS? Implement a database running on top of ZFS, that has similar functionality as WinFS? (I never understood the advantages of having a database on top of NTFS, maybe it would be pointless for ZFS? Can someone knowledgeable give some input to my question?) This message posted from opensolaris.org
> Ive heard that WinFS is a filesystem that has some kind of database? I didnt understand the advantages because I havent read about it, but it is the best thing since sliced bread according to MS. > > My question is, because WinFS database is running on top of NTFS, could a similar thing be done for ZFS? Implement a database running on top of ZFS, that has similar functionality as WinFS? > > (I never understood the advantages of having a database on top of NTFS, maybe it would be pointless for ZFS? Can someone knowledgeable give some input to my question?)You should know that WinFS is simply a modified MS SQL Server with a passthrough to NTFS for filestream objects. The public releases of WinFS weren''t doing anything special. The data store were regular MDB files hidden in x:\System Volume Information and filestream blobs files with GUIDs as name also hidden in that folder. The advantage was supposed to be an unified data store, where data would be stored in structured formats instead of binary blobs, unless it wasn''t possible otherwise (e.g. JPEG image data, where as EXIF data would have been extracted and stored in the structured parts). Like this, every application supporting WinFS would be able to share their data between each other. -mg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 217 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080317/4bb384eb/attachment.bin>
Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS MS put a lot of efforts on it however they were unable to lunch it. Best regards Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +902123352222 Email mertol.ozyoney at Sun.COM -----Original Message----- From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Orvar Korvar Sent: 17 Mart 2008 Pazartesi 14:12 To: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] Microsoft WinFS for ZFS? Ive heard that WinFS is a filesystem that has some kind of database? I didnt understand the advantages because I havent read about it, but it is the best thing since sliced bread according to MS. My question is, because WinFS database is running on top of NTFS, could a similar thing be done for ZFS? Implement a database running on top of ZFS, that has similar functionality as WinFS? (I never understood the advantages of having a database on top of NTFS, maybe it would be pointless for ZFS? Can someone knowledgeable give some input to my question?) This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Orvar Korvar wrote:> > My question is, because WinFS database is running on top of NTFS, > could a similar thing be done for ZFS? Implement a database running > on top of ZFS, that has similar functionality as WinFS?Object-oriented content management could be run on any sort of underlying file system. It is just a layer on top.> (I never understood the advantages of having a database on top of > NTFS, maybe it would be pointless for ZFS? Can someone knowledgeable > give some input to my question?)ZFS just provides storage. It seems that the problem with object-oriented content management is that a user interface needs to be provided, which is not standardized in any way. This user interface needs to be used to put content into the system, to find content in the system, and to use content from the system. There also needs to be a way to back everything up. If the content management knows about the internal structure of the objects, then it might provide a way to access a document so that all of the objects (e.g. figures) used by that document are visible and may be updated. There are likely some mainframe environments which do this sort of thing, but mainframes are essentially closed systems so the mainframe vendor has more control. Bob =====================================Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Ok, thanx for your answers! So, I guess there is no point in providing a database on top of ZFS, just as MS tried to do? A WinFS like thing on ZFS wouldnt be beneficial at all? Better off with plain ZFS? This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Orvar Korvar wrote:> > So, I guess there is no point in providing a database on top of ZFS, > just as MS tried to do? A WinFS like thing on ZFS wouldnt be > beneficial at all? Better off with plain ZFS?That would depend entirely on requirements and expectations. The issues are not really related to the filesystem so a properly implemented solution which works on NTFS should also work on zfs or any other standards-compliant filesystem. It would be pretty foolish for Microsoft to implement something which only works for the local system and not for networked clients, so it would need to be able to work over SMB. Likewise, it should be possible to store the data on a server somewhere. Bob =====================================Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Orvar Korvar wrote:> Ok, thanx for your answers! > > So, I guess there is no point in providing a database on top of ZFS, just as MS tried to do? A WinFS like thing on ZFS wouldnt be beneficial at all? Better off with plain ZFS? >I don''t think this is a simple question. The way ZFS is designed, you could plug a new module into the DMU. Most people interface with the ZPL (POSIX Layer) module, with some folks using ZVols. There is nothing to say that you can''t come up with another module that leverages the DMU. -- richard
Actually, having a database on top of an FS is really useful. It''s a Content Addressable Storage system. One of the problem home users have is that they are putting more and more of their lives in digital format. Users need a way to organize and search all that info in some sort of meaningful way. Imagine having thousands of photos spread all over your filesystems with nothing but filenames associated with them. That''s not too easily searchable or organized. Imagine all the objects stored on your filesystem have tags associated with them or other metadata that is required at save time. Then you can start doing things like virtual folders. Imagine a folder on your windows desktop that says "Steely Dan" and when you click it runs a query shows you all the music files on your computer by Steely Dan and pretends to be an explorer windows. or a virtual folder that says "Springbreak 2008 pics" and when you click it it goes through all your gagillion photos and creates an explorer window of just the spring break pics. Today, you''d have to tag the Metadata yourself as you put content on your computer, but Microsoft has other initiatives to do facial recognition in photos and some other things to go along with the Content addressable storage system. There''s a lot of uses for Content Addressable Storage systems including revision control and some other things that home users can benefit from. At the Enterprise level, such a system would be something like the 5800(Honeycomb) from Sun. This message posted from opensolaris.org
That sounds neat. Just like spotlight(?) search function for Mac OS X, but built into the DB on top the file system? Is fast searches the only advantage? Then, isnt there any spotlight search function for solaris? This message posted from opensolaris.org
Have you ever used a Mac? HFS has had these features for years. On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Bryan Wagoner <bryan at wagz.tv> wrote:> Actually, having a database on top of an FS is really useful. It''s a Content Addressable Storage system. One of the problem home users have is that they are putting more and more of their lives in digital format. Users need a way to organize and search all that info in some sort of meaningful way. Imagine having thousands of photos spread all over your filesystems with nothing but filenames associated with them. That''s not too easily searchable or organized. > > Imagine all the objects stored on your filesystem have tags associated with them or other metadata that is required at save time. Then you can start doing things like virtual folders. Imagine a folder on your windows desktop that says "Steely Dan" and when you click it runs a query shows you all the music files on your computer by Steely Dan and pretends to be an explorer windows. or a virtual folder that says "Springbreak 2008 pics" and when you click it it goes through all your gagillion photos and creates an explorer window of just the spring break pics. > > Today, you''d have to tag the Metadata yourself as you put content on your computer, but Microsoft has other initiatives to do facial recognition in photos and some other things to go along with the Content addressable storage system. > > There''s a lot of uses for Content Addressable Storage systems including revision control and some other things that home users can benefit from. At the Enterprise level, such a system would be something like the 5800(Honeycomb) from Sun. > > > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >-- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/
So yeah, you just supported what I said about a database on top of a filesystem being useful because HFS uses a database type structure for it''s catalog. It''s an object based storage but the schema in HFS isn''t as extensible as to what I''m referring to in future Content Addressable Storage systems. There''s more than WinFs obviously out there including the future versions of SAM-FS/QFS, but the thread was about WinFS specifically. This message posted from opensolaris.org
Richard Elling wrote:> Orvar Korvar wrote: >> Ok, thanx for your answers! >> >> So, I guess there is no point in providing a database on top of ZFS, just as MS tried to do? A WinFS like thing on ZFS wouldnt be beneficial at all? Better off with plain ZFS? >> > > I don''t think this is a simple question. The way ZFS is designed, > you could plug a new module into the DMU. Most people interface > with the ZPL (POSIX Layer) module, with some folks using ZVols. > There is nothing to say that you can''t come up with another module > that leverages the DMU.pNFS is doing exactly this and while the service that pNFS provides is a file system it is using ZFS as a "database" and uses the DMU/DSL directly rather than through the ZPL. http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nfsv41/ -- Darren J Moffat
Ok, here is lot of info and input. Thanx for sharing! I wonder, would it be possible for SUN to come up with a WinFS similar thing upon ZFS? A killer app for ZFS, making everyone wanting ZFS (everyone wants it already, but more is more)? I would like to see SUN did a database thingy a la WinFS on top ZFS. And SUN would surely revolutionize database + filesystems again. Just as SUN did with ZFS. How would SUN''s solution look like? Would it together with ZFS, revolutionize again, making WinFS look like a piece of crap? Just as ZFS makes NTFS look like crap, I would like SUN to make something that makes WinFS look like crap! :o) Would it be possible to utilize the unique functions ZFS has, to revolutionize again? What possible advantages could ZFS provide for the database thingy? Are there any advantages to use ZFS instead, at all? Speculations are welcome! :o) This message posted from opensolaris.org
> So, I guess there is no point in providing a database on top of ZFS, just as MS tried > to do? A WinFS like thing on ZFS wouldnt be beneficial at all? Better off with plain ZFS?This is a no-brainer. Microsoft tried to hit a fly with a hammer and noticed their arm getting tired. Why would you build a complex database filesystem for searching through some pictures and word documents, or movies and songs? The answer is: you wouldn''t. You''d do what everyone is already doing: provide a user app that indexes important files and lets you search them. Problem solved. That is the current state of things. Anything else is head-in-cloud right now. This message posted from opensolaris.org
> Why would you build a complex database filesystem for searching through some pictures and word documents, or movies and songs? The answer is: you wouldn''t. You''d do what everyone is already doing: provide a user app that indexes important files and lets you search them. Problem solved.That''s what everyone gets wrong all the time. WinFS was/is supposed to be an object store / structured data store, using unified schemas across different applications. Data sharing is the main point of it. The metadata indexing was just a side effect of allowing storage of regular files in it. -mg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 217 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080318/6f9a2489/attachment.bin>
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Orvar Korvar wrote:> Just as ZFS makes NTFS look like crap, I would like SUN to make > something that makes WinFS look like crap! :o) Would it be possible > to utilize the unique functions ZFS has, to revolutionize again? > What possible advantages could ZFS provide for the database thingy? > Are there any advantages to use ZFS instead, at all? Speculations > are welcome! :o)ZFS is cool because it is very clean, nicely documented, and is very simple for the user. It would be quite wrong for Sun to diverge from this. There are many other things that Sun should focus on before worrying about content management. It would be useful if ZFS helped make using the "SAN" as easy as it makes using a collection of already accessible disks. ZFS is pretty, but it is layered on top of some very ugly looking things (e.g. "multipath" is super-ugly), so lets attend to those ugly things before worrying about adding frosting on top. Bob =====================================Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
WinFS sort of addresses the CAS needs of the home user Market. Sun is already working on the Enterprise CAS needs with Honeycomb (5800) programmable storage array. I believe they are moving the code base to ZFS. The database it uses for it''s metadata and programmable schemas came out of a project Sun did for the Telecom industry I believe. Also, The next versions of SAMFS are going to be more extensible and start playing more in the CAS space. So I think we''re golden, there are ongoing projects to do this stuff on Sun and on ZFS. :) And actually you can buy and deploy honeycomb today. it''s filesystem has a lot of the ZFS characteristics plus it has the CAS stuff. The field of archive is certainly changing into a very interesting place. This message posted from opensolaris.org