Peter Chubb Most network file systems are either a layer over an existing filesystem (NFS, CIFS), or are …

Leave a Reply

26 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
Jan Gelbrich909sickleJim AdamsKeith Bondzyxwvutsrqponmlkh Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Andrew Šveikauskas

Other people have said this, but the "storage layer at bottom, POSIX semantics as a layer on top" design does remind me of ZFS.


"If we add a index to the contents, we can do full text searches" yeah, that would certainly improve write performance π.π

Elwood Hopkins

Other questions? One there:
Just WHY?
Because it's cool!


This HAS been done before. By Don Nelson and Dick Pick.


What can people who know linux….work as?
I mean career path as a Linux expert..? Please comment it will help


The idea is not new but is not used very much. But one could extend the filesystem model by lifting the restriction on parent-child directory relationship (in a file-system the hierarchy of the filesystem mandates that every child directory has at most one parent directory), making it a N:M relationship (child directory can have more then one parent directory). Second, it is not necessary to store the datablocks in the database, they could be filesystem files, and only keep the meta-info about the file in the database, or only store structured file-contents in the database (not as datablocks but as… Read more »

Ketil Froyn

This is an interesting academic exercise, but I'm not convinced this would survive real use. For example, won't this system get trouble with a large number of files? A benefit of ordinary file systems is that you have some isolation between directories. If you create millions of files in a directory, operations such as stat will tend to be slow in that directory, but other directories remain unaffected. With this table structure at the core, I guess all stat operations will get slower as the table gets big.


…good try…i see all the craftsmanship there…

Brandon Orwell

This man looks exactly like I'd imagine a man who ported a database system to IRIX 6.5 would look like.

Erin Cobb

He mentioned modern databases, but there's still some dinosaurs with current releases kicking around.
I beleive SAP ASE and IBM DB2 both support using raw partitions as database devices. Oracle ASM could be said to put a database on top of raw partitions (and then you put databases on top of that).


You've more or less described zfs.

Miloš Anđelković

Heh, go ask Microsoft about WinFS.

Pierre Ciholas

I've been thinking of doing just that for a very long time. Glad to see some brilliant people took action !!

Randal Davis

I worked as a sysadmin/architect and found using the logical volume manager and laying out cooked file systems in multiple volumes across spindles and isolating the log/root worked better than raw volumes. this also made backups and maint easier. plus the sysadmin jrs were less confused when working on a lot of different system. the cache memory & SAN storage array changed the world so much and the database training does not cover this type of configuration. I did run into a few applications with a (like a firehose) data streams that could overwhelm a storage array, but with a… Read more »

Juan Carlos Andreu

Amazing talk.


Didn't Microsoft claim they were going to do this around the XP time, then never did? DB as FS is like libertarianism – one of those obvious ideas that will never happen because it requires starting everything over from the ground up.

Jim Adams

Wasn't this exactly what Oracle did when it implemented its RDBMS onto the PC?
It completely ignored MSDOS/WIN and held all the physical/logical info of the storage media in meta tables accessible only by the DBA.

Keith Bond

Oracle released something similar (DBFS) in Oracle 11gR2 (2009). I don't know how it compares but I can say that it's reasonably popular.


I want a datasystem as a filebase.

Mihai Stancu

SQLite initialized with /dev/sdb2 as the source and you've got DB + raw disk

Nin Kan

ZFS is already a COW transactional FS … there … your wish came true years ago

Adam Carmichael

I vaguely recall reading about something like this in The Road Ahead when I was in high school. Turns out Microsoft has done a bit of research into it as early as Cairo's Object File System in the early-mid 90s. I wonder how much of the research has been published?

(I'm not holding my breath though)

Harry Ayres

This is something I've wanted for years, but not enough to reorganize my life enough to learn all the required skills to implement it. I'm thrilled to see somebody doing the work!


Windows includes something called "Transactional NTFS" which means transactional operations are supported at the file system layer, but it is deprecated.


This really interests me, i really think speed could be even better than on standart FS, but there will have to be more space used instead.

Jan Gelbrich

Never liked a video so fast =)