Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th May 2013 21:41 UTC
Windows "Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 561344
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Too funny
by cdude on Mon 13th May 2013 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too funny"
cdude
Member since:
2008-09-21

The database is named filesystem. Binary dumps for logs? That is stupid like a binary config registry.

Edited 2013-05-13 05:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Too funny
by Soulbender on Mon 13th May 2013 06:14 in reply to "RE[6]: Too funny"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Binary dumps for logs? That is stupid like a binary config registry.


On the contrary, putting logs into searchable binary storage like ElasticSearch is great. Grep doesn't really scale.
Binary is not a good format for the default system logs though.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Too funny
by Alfman on Mon 13th May 2013 06:21 in reply to "RE[6]: Too funny"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

cdude,

"The database is named filesystem. Binary dumps for logs? That's more stupid then a binary config registry."

I'm finding it peculiar that you'd bring up a "named filesystem" database given that it doesn't apply to logfiles.


With a database, each record exists and is manipulated independently from all other records. You cannot use file system level operators (cd, ls, find, etc) to query log files or manipulate individual records. In order to get the same level of granularity that a database gives us, you'd have to store each "record" or log event in a separate file. Another major difference is that the database records can be indexed such that queries will only read in the records that match the criteria. A text log file on the other hand has no indexes and needs to be fully scanned.


Text processing programs like sed/grep/cut/sort/etc are great tools, but SQL is far more powerful for advanced analytics.

Edit: Also, the windows registry sucks, no disagreement there. But it's not right to put all databases in the same boat as regedit. The registry has a huge gap in analytical power and structure compared to any real database.

Edited 2013-05-13 06:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Too funny
by satsujinka on Mon 13th May 2013 07:00 in reply to "RE[7]: Too funny"
satsujinka Member since:
2010-03-11

While cdude was being ostentatious, he does have a point. In that, technically, a file system is a graph database...

Skipping over that and more importantly, there's no reason why you can't implement a database on top of text files. Perhaps, there might be some performance penalty due to the size of a human word and a machine word. But most other issues (i.e. indexing) are just a matter of translating from binary to what that byte actually meant.

Of course, with semi-structured text that has little embedded meta-data (i.e. syslog's logfiles,) getting adequate performance would be hard. However, I was already suggesting adding checksum meta-data; so it's not really a stretch to imagine that I'm okay with adding whatever other necessary meta-data.

Reply Parent Score: 3