| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows on a database - sliced and diced by BeOS vets | |
|
||
| Time: 15:40 EST/20:40 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
After we wrote about Microsoft's plans to put a database into each copy of Windows as the native file store back in January, we were delighted to hear from two system architects for whom this news was really old hat. You see, it's been done before. Benoit Schillings was one of Be Inc's first employees, and authored the original user space database server. This was later superseded by a more conventional approach: BFS, a fast, 64bit journaled file system written by Dominic Giampaolo, which had many database-like properties. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:27:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/31/2002 4:47:37 PM |
|
Seems to me this article is simply a rehash of all the problems the BeOS guys had when creating their DB file system. Not once do they actually say they have any information about how Microsoft is going to implement their system. They just guess a lot.
I remember when Microsoft first started working on SQL Server 7.0. Everybody was saying that the expertise required to make a good database server was beyond Microsoft, and that SQL Server 6.5 (which was largely bought, built upon, and had very little Microsoft original code) was not exactly a good starting point. Microsoft agreed, and completely rewrote SQL Server 7 from the ground up. As it turned out, it wasn't too shabby at all - certainly not for a first try. SQL Server 2000 eventually arrived, and was so good that in non-clustered environments, it is now almost always the best possible choice! Better than DB2! Better than Oracle! Wow! Now I hear Oracle proponents saying that it took Oracle 10+ years of hard work to make a truly scalable (horizontally, not vertically - which SQL Server already does better than Oracle) database server, and so everybody should ignore Microsoft on the database front for at least another 7 or 8 years if you need clustering. Well, I predict that the version of SQL Server after Yukon will have the same (and probably better) clustering abilities as Oracle. What do I base this on? Well, complete speculation... I'm trying to use the past to predict the future. At any rate, Oracle has been mostly stagnant over the past several years, so let's "hope" it's not a case of the tortoise and the hare. After all, I love paying 20x more for Oracle. What does all of this have to do with a database file system? Well, the Be guys seem to think that their approach was the only viable one. It may be. It or may not. They have no idea what Microsoft is doing, and that's what it comes down to. The only thing we really have to build an argument upon (right now anyway) is the past, and Microsoft has succeed in these kinds of unlikely endeavors before... I say they will do it again. :-) This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, March 31, 2002 at 16:49. |
| #2 By 20 (24.243.32.227) at 3/31/2002 11:25:41 PM |
|
Yet more Register FUD.
a.) Database-based filesystems have been around a long time. The BeOS guys weren't the first to invent it despite what the Register FUD machine would have you believe. b.) MS has been working on a DB-based filesystem in their research for years, probably even before BeOS was around. MS research has been working on many things for a long time. |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/1/2002 12:56:00 AM |
|
#3 - I read the article pretty carefully. What gave you the opposite impression to the one I expressed in my first post?
They basically discussed all the difficulties they had while implementing a DBFS, and because of the context of the article, it sounded like they were assuming Microsoft would have the same problems. On second thought, perhaps it was The Register that put the spin on what they said that I am perceiving... |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:27:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
