From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Encouraged or discouraged? Object database directly on reiserfs Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:07:08 +0400 Message-ID: <3DB0239C.2050409@namesys.com> References: <00ac01c276a9$463934e0$6400a8c0@twister> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Szabolcs Szasz Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Szabolcs Szasz wrote: >Hi, > >I'm creating an OODB for use by ISPs. Now for the prototype >I use plain filesystem storage, object properties (names, phone >numbers, URLs etc.) are all stored in multitudes of very small >files, collected into large directories and there are symlinks all >over the place... > >For any "classical" filesystems this is clearly a horrible abuse... > >It may be for the current reiserfs level, too, but much less. > Take a look at reiser4 next week, it will get a bit easier. > >Considering the future (and remembering the Vision doc. at >Namesys), is it encouraged or discouraged to continue the >OODB implementation atop the native filesystem storage? >(Speed is important, but not the primary concern. Unconstrained, >solid and versatile data accessibilty beats it -- that's why the >fs storage rather than adding a DBMS engine.) > >Thanks very much, >Sab > > > > > Is it a GPL OODB? If it is a GPL OODB, we encourage you to do it, we'll answere your questions and be helpful, but we will try to obsolete you someday. If it is not a GPL OODB, you might consider forming a commercial relationship with us. Hans