<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat - Latest Comments in We Need a Storage Revolution</title><link>http://fosketts.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://fosketts.disqus.com/we_need_a_storage_revolution/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:39:08 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: We Need a Storage Revolution</title><link>http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/04/30/storage-revolution/#comment-334161074</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I totally agree on eliminating the POSIX hierarchy as being an official part of the file system. The "/" separator can be demoted to being a human convention that has no meaning to the file system itself, just as ".extension" has been since Unix became dominant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;When hierarchical directories were created they served a real purpose -- they limited how much directory information had to be read at once. Well systems today have a lot more than 64KB of RAM to work with, they can support gigantic flat directories with long file names.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am less certain about Jeff Darcy's comment. I think the other POSIX element that S3, GFS, HDFS, SWift/etc. have eliminated is partial file update.  I think the Facebook Haystack designers hit the nail on the head when they championed a post-POSIX paradigm "where data is written once, read often, never modified, and rarely deleted."&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Caitlin Bestler</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:39:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: We Need a Storage Revolution</title><link>http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/04/30/storage-revolution/#comment-207718878</link><description>&lt;p&gt; Amen!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jay Sharp</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 06:22:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: We Need a Storage Revolution</title><link>http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/04/30/storage-revolution/#comment-194818951</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That's exactly my concern too, Steve.  I think what the world really needs is a system in which objects are named or found in a more sophisticated way than a POSIX-style hierarchy, but once found have POSIX-like semantics such as efficient random-byte updates in the middle of large objects.  In more specific terms, something better than open() and mkdir() but exactly the same read() and write().  In fact, I think you and I and Mich discussed this idea at some length back in 2001 or so.  Should've gone out and worked on it.  ;)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Obdurodon</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:19:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: We Need a Storage Revolution</title><link>http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/04/30/storage-revolution/#comment-3765339</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Stephen,&lt;br&gt;One concern I have with CAS eliminating block/file is the transactional semantics of changing data.  Block and file approaches handle changing data quite well; CAS (and XAM) are geared towards fixed content (unchanging data). But I do agree with the stance that you are taking and the direction that your thoughts are going: concepts like CAS solve problems in ways that block and file cannot.&lt;br&gt;Steve&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">stevetodd</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:29:05 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>