Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Nov 2010 22:40 UTC, submitted by rhyder
Thread beginning with comment 448618
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Your experience was quite different from mine.
When ever a file was saved in a directory, it automatically added the function of inheritance to the file, keying the additional information set for that directory.
Any files added could be searched using those keys.
If you where searching and added a file during the search, the search recognized that file almost immediately.
I did not test the endurance of the system as you may have, but found it very easy to use.
And as a plus, I don't think I ever heard the hard drive make a noise. It was the quietest file system I've ever used.
My only regret was that the file system was not universalized and aggregated over a network of multiple machines during a search.




Member since:
2006-05-30
Until AA (or maybe DR 9, I forget) BeOS had a filesystem completely based around database concepts. It universally sucked and was fairly unpopular towards the end of its life(that might have been implementation or whatever, but it regularly required rebuilding indexes and stuff, even to the point where the BootROM had a "REBUILD INDEXES" option.)
The OFS (as BeOS calls it) was all about tagging and not having specific folders and what have you (though it obviously presented a hierarchical file system, I seem to recall that was more a convenience than anything else.)
The BFS we have today was a "compromise" between database like features (extended attributes, query based searches) and trad file systems.
The problem with querying the "database" is that at any one time you are unsure what state the "entries" are in. A trad file system gains speed because you only need to look in a specific location for the directory list (however that has been implemented, as it does vary across various FS.) With a database like approach (even with extended attributes like with BFS) you get a delay, whilst the tagged files are located. Trad file systems work well because there is a very atomic relationship to the physical data and actual structure. To graft something similar on to a FS and keep all of the metadata up to date (therefore, skip what BFS does, and keep the indexed data fresh so that the lookups are fast) causes dreadful synchronisation issues (as Microsoft found when they first decided to graft SQL Server on to a file system. Performance also becomes slower as the data structures containing the file data expand - plus, with attribute based indexing, an index can be added at any time which might cause a complete re-index.
I dunno, I'm not a FS expert, but I've read Domonic Giampaolo's BFS book (and in fact, just spelled his name correctly be reading it off the spine of the book) and I'd recommend anyone interested in this takes a look at it. http://www.nobius.org/~dbg/practical-file-system-design.pdf