On 1/9/07 1:22 PM, Richard P. Welty wrote:
..
yes, it seems to me that the author of this proposal doesn't really
understand the huge gap between a conventional file system and
a full up RDBMS.
I do.
let file systems be good file systems, and let the RDBMS or OO DBMS
be a good DBMS.
Then explain to me what a good file system is!
Filesystems need versioning and replication =build in=, you cannot
backup a 750G harddisk now and then, these days everything is "on
line" and you need continous copies on multiple locations.
Restoring a 750GB disk (who has tapedrives to store 750G?) costs about
a minute a GB, clueless path.
And a filesystem with true versioning and replication is as close to a
database as you can get.
So lets do that right.
FFS is OK for now but not for the future.
+++chefren
