Slashdot Mirror
MySQL FS
xcyber writes "Developer, Database Admin and user, MySQL is developing an mysql filesystem for Linux to mount database on
Linux as a fs. This is still in development stage and the development
team would like to receive comment on this. So please let us know.
" "Because you can" dammit. Thats just plain awesome.
phexro!pyramid:~$ SELECT * from pr0n WHERE sex='f' AND species='goat';
--
Nice. However, first things first: any replacement for the current system has to start by doing all the things the current system does, at least as simply. This is the main reason I think 'cd' is a good command to include.
It's BAD to try for too much with the first release. If you'd like an 'object system', by all means prototype one using conventional directories; you'll decide quickly that it's little different from modern Unix (remember ioctl!). In other words, an overly complex solution.
We need a true file system, one in which ioctl isn't needed. See the latest plan9 OS for details.
-Billy
A while back (a year maybe?) Oracle announced their iFS product. Dubbed the Internet file system, it gave file system, IMAP, POP, FTP, and web access to the database through a common software. I haven't had the chance to work with it, and it still may not even be available, but to be able to store files in the database and enforce integrity, it's extremely easy to track revisioning, maintain lists, and perform searches and reports. It seems like wonderful technology that should be a part of every OS, but I'm curious as to performance. Has anyone had any experience with iFS?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
Much of the ultimate point of ReiserFS is the marriage of databases and filesystems (filesystems are really just a limited sort of database anyway). This is the reason for the all the commercial funding; there are people out there who really want this.
See Hans Reiser's White Paper for information on where he's going with this.
For what it's worth, database filesystems are not a new thing at all. Hans is just planning on accomplishing this in a way that completely preserves the Unix file metaphor and related concepts.
DNA just wants to be free...
Damn, you...both of you stole *my* idea! ;)
For a long time now I've been thinking about filesystem-as-database concept. We've passed the point where computing is about optimizing hardware resources. It is now about optimizing *user* and *information* resources. If your hardware is blazingly fast, but you are lost in a sea of irrelevant information, you can't do anything. I think that's where the database/meta-filesystem comes in.
With all this rich content around, we should not be searching for files based on some arbitrary linear categorical name. We should be searching on *attributes*. We should be searching on *association*. E.g., "List all files relating to my work that I have store on my home computer", "Now, of those, show me all files that pertain to status reports". Or "List all data I have on the artists and bands in my music collection". etc.
This is where plain, flat, hierarchical file systems fail. We need basically a data "repository", and various ways of obtaining information from that repository, based on attributes, categories, mime types, relation to *other* files, etc.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
In my vision, 'documents' would be categorised, and the categories could be viewed in a manner very similar to how we now view directories, except that a file is in more than one folder at a time. A file which is named /etc/wtanksle/ppp.conf could also be referred to as /wtanksle/etc/ppp.conf, or if it's unambiguous, /etc/ppp.conf. /dev/removable gives the list of all removable devices; /dev/scsi gives the SCSI devices (including the removable ones).
The potential uses are many -- I think it would make a lot of common computer tasks a lot easier.
Oh well -- anyhow. :-)
-Billy
Take the linux kernel. Would the kernel be anywhere near where it is today if people hadn't gotten others interested by writing intriguing, linux-only apps? Probably not. Perhaps one day MySQL will evolve to the point where this will be useful, perhaps due to developers attracted by this project.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
The AS/400 uses a relational database as a universal data store for all system, application, and user data resources. The database is protected with very fine-grained access privileges and managed with well-defined administrative tools, which dramatically boosts security (since there is only one global security mechanism to manage all system and application resources).
This approach also simplifies development, which helps to make the AS/400 such a powerful application engine.
I believe that is one of the goals of ReiserFS as well -- that database vendors use file systems to store data instead of having to use raw disk partitions, or deal with file system overhead plus database overhead...
Matt Barnson
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
No offense to MySQL, but is it ready for such a task? Last I heard, MySQL didn't have record-level-locking except in some experimental forks. Are there any features lacking from MySQL that might make another database more appropriate (ignoring for the moment the license of them).
No. I believe BeOS just has a meta attribute at the FS level filled with supposed attributes.
BeOS doesn't have one big clump of data that is partitioned; it has a lot of little bits of data. There is nothing "supposed" about the attributes.
For instance, an "MP3" datatype might have fields for Artist, Title, Album, Year, and Comments. You could then search for any song with the word "Land," performed by a group with "Men" in their name, on any album between the years 1982-1988, with the phrase "sounds like crap" in the comment field.
There's no way to actually define a new field at the FS level.
Sure there is. Preferences->Filetypes allows you to add new attributes to a particular filetype, as well as define new filetypes. It's up to the associated applications to do anything meaningful with the new field or fields, but you can pretty much do what you want.
On the command line, I don't think you can manipulate a global filetype. However, for individual files, you can add your own attributes, delete existing ones, and so on.
Early version of BeOS did use a database FS for the entire system but they dropped it by R4 (I think that's the right version) because of performance issues.
The early versions of BeOS used a separate database (not very complex) and filesystem, which wound up being very difficult to work with, so eventually they merged the two. The "database" aspects of the BeOS filesystem are more of being able to add (relatively) arbitrary data to particular filetypes, and do searching based on those criteria. It isn't a formal database in any sense of the word.
--
Imagine a dynamic web site that uses this! You could simply copy files (especially graphics files) to/from a table easily and look them up via SQL queries! My goodness, the usefulness is extreme, people.
Have any of you (fs!=db) nay-sayers ever tried to store/retrieve GIFs and JPEGs in a relational database for a web site -- an often daunting, but often necessary task? There are whole article on my to store/retrieve pics as BLOBs via MySQL/PHP on PHPBuilder.com: http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/florian19991014. php3 and (sorta) http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/bealers20000904. php3
So, for those of you who can't get over this idea, try doing sites that store images in databases sometime. An idea like this (one being done by the big RDBMs -- and I work for one of those) is a BOON for websites. It also has many other applications.
A layer of abstraction is often a good thing for filesystems, and it's where things are headed. IMHO, I think db's could provide BETTER security and make things more distributed, rather than current filesystems. Imagine whole new networked filesystems that are distributed databases. Open your mind. Think about it hard before brushing it aside.
Besides a db is an fs is a db. It depends on how you look at it, your definition, etc. Is a filesystem relational? Does a db use local storage, often RAW storage. The true computer definition of the two is not all that different. And, SQL is not the only query language out there. Haven't you heard of CLI, which uses commands like cat, ls, echo, rm, mv to handle data? What about those relationships called directories?
I say, what's the real issue? Raw speed? Oh, wah! Grow up and join the enterprise! Oops, I guess the AS/400 must not be a viable platform; they've been doing this HOW LONG?!?!?
Q: When are we Linux/Open Source people going to get enterprise-level file and storage management?A: When we get to the point that we implement at least a JFS (if not a full-fledged logged filesystem, good logical volume management, real uninterruptible power, truly fault-tolerant hardware/software clustering, better security, and fully distributed storage management that backups and versions data automagically.
On a lighter note, MySQL now implements a filesystem. :-)