[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ideas for object-based git-like storage on Linux



On 06/02/11 23:40, Roger Leigh wrote:
Hi folks,

There are lots of Debian people out there using git, and some of them
have expressed interest over the years in having the ability to use
git as a filesystem in its own right (#477942 is an example of one
in a package I maintain).

I've finally got down to it and written all my thoughts on the topic
down in a mostly-organised form, which you can find at

  http://www.codelibre.net/~rleigh/hashlink.pdf

This paper looks at the concept of object-based storage, and the
creation of "hashlinks", essentially symlinks which use hashes
rather than pathnames to refer to a file.  Currently a complete
draft, which could probably use a little more editing.

Any thoughts or comments welcome; I'm just putting it out there
because I have no time to actually implement this at the moment,
but it's an interesting topic, and one which could potentially
revolutionise the way we use filesystems if done properly.  I
started writing to organise my thinking on the matter, and I think
that through that I've actually got a basically implementable
robust design that would actually work very efficiently.

[For the curious, I thought I'd forego XeLaTeX and inkscape, and
write this in troff (-ms) and xfig/PIC.  It's not too shabby for
a nearly 40 year old system, though I am not half as proficient in
it as I am with LaTeX.]


Regards,
Roger

  
You could take a look at http://sourceforge.net/projects/treedb/
which implements an object data store right now.

It doesn't have transactions or a security model yet but it does support 64 bit memory maps.
It's stable but not mature yet, and has plenty of tests/demos to get you started, in C and C++.

I'm working on v3c-schema now which will allow you to specify the object schema directly instead of
through C structure definitions + code.
This will for example allow you to do speed versus resource usage analysis more easily.

Comments + suggestions welcome.

Philip


Reply to: