COMP 3000 Essay 1 2010 Question 9 - Revision history

Soma: Unprotected "COMP 3000 Essay 1 2010 Question 9"

2010-11-08T15:34:04Z

Unprotected "COMP 3000 Essay 1 2010 Question 9"

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:34, 8 November 2010
(No difference)

Soma: Protected "COMP 3000 Essay 1 2010 Question 9" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2010-10-15T13:36:17Z

Protected "COMP 3000 Essay 1 2010 Question 9" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:36, 15 October 2010
(No difference)

Naseido: /* Introduction */

2010-10-15T11:44:29Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:44, 15 October 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	== '''Introduction''' ==		== '''Introduction''' ==
	ZFS was developed by Sun Microsystems in order to ever increasing storage particularly in a server environment. Some of the motivations behind its development were modularity and simplicity, immense scalability (ZFS is a 128-bit file system), and ease of administration. Also, ZFS was designed with the aim of avoiding some of the major problems associated with traditional file systems. In particular, it avoids possible data corruption, especially silent corruption, as well as the inability to expand and shrink storage dynamically, the inability to fix bad blocks automatically, a low level of abstractions and a lack of simple interfaces. [Z2]		ZFS was developed by Sun Microsystems in order to tackle the problem of ever increasing storage needs, particularly in a server environment. Some of the motivations behind its development were modularity and simplicity, immense scalability (ZFS is a 128-bit file system), and ease of administration. Also, ZFS was designed with the aim of avoiding some of the major problems associated with traditional file systems. In particular, it avoids possible data corruption, especially silent corruption, as well as the inability to expand and shrink storage dynamically, the inability to fix bad blocks automatically, a low level of abstractions and a lack of simple interfaces. [Z2]
	The growing needs of file storage are currently best met by the ZFS file system as the requirements that this system satisfies are not fully implemented by any other one system.		The growing needs of file storage are currently best met by the ZFS file system as the requirements that this system satisfies are not fully implemented by any other one system.

Naseido: /* Comparison */

2010-10-15T11:42:46Z

Comparison

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 15 October 2010
Line 118:		Line 118:

	====Comparison====		====Comparison====
	Upon first inspection, Btrfs seems near identical to ZFS. However, Btrfs does lack some a features of ZFS. First of all, Btrfs doesn't have the self-healing capability or data deduplication of ZFS. Second, ZFS also support more configurations of software RAID than Btrfs. However, since ZFS does have three more years of development it is still very possible for Btrfs to catch up.		Upon first inspection, Btrfs seems near identical to ZFS. However, Btrfs does lack some features of ZFS. First of all, Btrfs doesn't have the self-healing capability or data deduplication of ZFS. Second, ZFS also support more configurations of software RAID than Btrfs. However, since ZFS does have three more years of development it is still very possible for Btrfs to catch up.

	WinFS provided an interesting set of features, many of which are completely different than ZFS, because it approached the problem differently. While both were attempting to meet the needs of the modern computer, ZFS was more focused on server settings and WinFS seemed to be focused on the requirements of the home PC user. WinFS was not focused on performance or large memory storage needs and therefore it would not have been able to serve as a useful replacement for traditional file systems.		WinFS provided an interesting set of features, many of which are completely different than ZFS, because it approached the problem differently. While both were attempting to meet the needs of the modern computer, ZFS was more focused on server settings and WinFS seemed to be focused on the requirements of the home PC user. WinFS was not focused on performance or large memory storage needs and therefore it would not have been able to serve as a useful replacement for traditional file systems.

Naseido: /* Comparison */

2010-10-15T11:40:11Z

Comparison

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:40, 15 October 2010
Line 120:		Line 120:
	Upon first inspection, Btrfs seems near identical to ZFS. However, Btrfs does lack some a features of ZFS. First of all, Btrfs doesn't have the self-healing capability or data deduplication of ZFS. Second, ZFS also support more configurations of software RAID than Btrfs. However, since ZFS does have three more years of development it is still very possible for Btrfs to catch up.		Upon first inspection, Btrfs seems near identical to ZFS. However, Btrfs does lack some a features of ZFS. First of all, Btrfs doesn't have the self-healing capability or data deduplication of ZFS. Second, ZFS also support more configurations of software RAID than Btrfs. However, since ZFS does have three more years of development it is still very possible for Btrfs to catch up.

	WinFS provided an interesting set of features, many of which are completely different than ZFS, because it approached the problem differently. While both were attempting to meet the needs of modern computer, ZFS is more focused on server settings and WinFS seemed to be ~~focusing~~ on the requirements of the home PC user. WinFS was not focused on performance or large memory storage needs and therefore it would not have been able to serve as a useful replacement for traditional file systems.		WinFS provided an interesting set of features, many of which are completely different than ZFS, because it approached the problem differently. While both were attempting to meet the needs of the modern computer, ZFS was more focused on server settings and WinFS seemed to be focused on the requirements of the home PC user. WinFS was not focused on performance or large memory storage needs and therefore it would not have been able to serve as a useful replacement for traditional file systems.

	These two file systems demonstrate that, while at this point no one system is capable of providing the full functionality and capabilities of ZFS, systems such as Btrfs are, at least, coming close. Perhaps someone will also take up WinFS and change it so it meets a wider needs profile. However, if we are dicussing a viable alternative to file systems today, ZFS is currently the best choice.		These two file systems demonstrate that, while at this point no one system is capable of providing the full functionality and capabilities of ZFS, systems such as Btrfs are, at least, coming close. Perhaps someone will also take up WinFS and change it so it meets a wider needs profile. However, if we are dicussing a viable alternative to file systems today, ZFS is currently the best choice.

Naseido: /* Comparison */

2010-10-15T11:38:38Z

Comparison

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:38, 15 October 2010
Line 118:		Line 118:

	====Comparison====		====Comparison====
	~~Btrfs upon~~ first inspection seems near identical to ZFS ~~currently however~~ Btrfs ~~lacks~~ a ~~couple~~ features ~~that~~ ZFS ~~does have~~. Btrfs doesn't have the self-healing capability or data deduplication of ZFS. ZFS also support more configurations of software RAID than Btrfs.~~[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs]~~ ZFS does have three more years of development ~~than~~ Btrfs ~~so Btrfs may very well~~ catch up.		Upon first inspection, Btrfs seems near identical to ZFS. However, Btrfs does lack some a features of ZFS. First of all, Btrfs doesn't have the self-healing capability or data deduplication of ZFS. Second, ZFS also support more configurations of software RAID than Btrfs. However, since ZFS does have three more years of development it is still very possible for Btrfs to catch up.

	WinFS ~~while vapourware did provide~~ an interesting set of features ~~may~~ of which are completely different than ZFS. ~~One reason for this is while~~ both were attempting to meet the needs of modern computer ZFS is more focused on server settings and WinFS seemed to be focusing on the ~~requirement~~ of the home PC user.		WinFS provided an interesting set of features, many of which are completely different than ZFS, because it approached the problem differently. While both were attempting to meet the needs of modern computer, ZFS is more focused on server settings and WinFS seemed to be focusing on the requirements of the home PC user. WinFS was not focused on performance or large memory storage needs and therefore it would not have been able to serve as a useful replacement for traditional file systems.

	These two file systems ~~show~~ that while ZFS ~~it could be supplanted.~~ Btrfs is close ~~to matching the feature set at which point it~~ will ~~be solely down to speed.~~ WinFS ~~proposed different way of storing~~ and ~~thinking about data and some new comer may pick up~~ the ~~torch~~.		These two file systems demonstrate that, while at this point no one system is capable of providing the full functionality and capabilities of ZFS, systems such as Btrfs are, at least, coming close. Perhaps someone will also take up WinFS and change it so it meets a wider needs profile. However, if we are dicussing a viable alternative to file systems today, ZFS is currently the best choice.

	== '''Conclusion''' ==		== '''Conclusion''' ==

Naseido: /* WinFS */

2010-10-15T11:18:09Z

WinFS

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 15 October 2010
Line 109:		Line 109:

	====WinFS====		====WinFS====
	WinFS (Windows Future Storage) is a ~~now~~ defunct project it ~~closed it's doors~~ in 2006~~. It~~ was the brainchild of Microsoft and deserves comparison with ZFS. While the other best in class file systems ( most notably Btrfs) all scramble to meet modern computing needs with an almost identical feature set to ZFS, WinFS was attempting a complete rethink of a file system.		WinFS (Windows Future Storage), although now a defunct project as it was cancelled in 2006, was the brainchild of Microsoft and deserves comparison with ZFS. While the other best in class file systems ( most notably Btrfs) all scramble to meet modern computing needs with an almost identical feature set to ZFS, WinFS was attempting a complete rethink of a file system.

	The two most notable features of WinFS was ~~it's~~ database based design and it's peer-to-peer replication services.		The two most notable features of WinFS was its database based design and it's peer-to-peer replication services.

	Unlike traditional file systems including cutting edge ZFS, WinFS was moving away from the hierarchical structure file systems regarding search. The file data was still going to reside in a hierarchical structure that was based on NTFS, but there was meta-data stored in a relational database. This would allow searches that transcended normal file meta-data like time stamp, name, text content. Meta-data could be added to any file type and resulting searches would return a collection of file types. Searches like "all the people I have pictures or of while I was on my trip in Thailand and whose email address I have" would be understood. The query would return the pictures, email traffic, contact card from organizer software.		Unlike traditional file systems including cutting edge ZFS, WinFS was moving away from the hierarchical structure file systems regarding search. The file data was still going to reside in a hierarchical structure that was based on NTFS, but there was meta-data stored in a relational database. This would allow searches that transcended normal file meta-data like time stamp, name, text content. Meta-data could be added to any file type and resulting searches would return a collection of file types. Searches like "all the people I have pictures of while I was on my trip in Thailand and whose email address I have" would be understood. The query would return the pictures, email traffic, contact card from organizer software.

	Microsoft also recognized the increasing importance of being able to replicate and synchronize data between devices. WinFS from the ground up was designed the ability to replicate data across thousands of computers. The synchronization algorithms were also intended to resolve conflicts with transparency to the user across potentially unreliable networks.		Microsoft also recognized the increasing importance of being able to replicate and synchronize data between devices. WinFS from the ground up was designed with the ability to replicate data across thousands of computers. The synchronization algorithms were also intended to resolve conflicts with transparency to the user across potentially unreliable networks.

	====Comparison====		====Comparison====

Lmundt: /* Notes */

2010-10-15T09:20:53Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:20, 15 October 2010
Line 181:		Line 181:

	* Rector Brent, (2004),[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479870.aspx "Chapter 4. Storage"], Wise Owl Consulting		* Rector Brent, (2004),[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479870.aspx "Chapter 4. Storage"], Wise Owl Consulting

	~~==Notes==~~
	~~{{reflist}}~~

Mchou2: /* Comparison */

2010-10-15T09:18:35Z

Comparison

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:18, 15 October 2010
Line 69:		Line 69:

	==== Comparison ====		==== Comparison ====
	In general, when observing how storage devices are managed using different file systems, one can notice that FAT32 file system has a max volume of 2TB(8TB -32KB clusters, 16TB -64KB clusters), 32TB for the ext2, while the ZFS contains 2^58 ZB -- an amount which isis incomparably larger. Also, ZFS has the ability to find and replace any bad data while the system is running which means that fsck is not used in ZFS, very much unlike the ext2 system. Not having to check for inconsistencies allows for ZFS to save time and resources by not systematically going through a storage device. The FAT32 file system manages a storage device, and the ext2 file system also just manages a storage device, whereas the ZFS utilizes a volume manager that can control multiple storage devices, virtual or physical. It is easy to see that although these legacy file systems fulfill the basic role of storing an retrieving data they cannot be reasonably compared to ZFS.		In general, when observing how storage devices are managed using different file systems, one can notice that FAT32 file system has a max volume of 2TB(8TB -32KB clusters, 16TB -64KB clusters), 32TB for the ext2, while the ZFS contains 2^58 ZB -- an amount which isis incomparably larger. Also, ZFS has the ability to find and replace any bad data while the system is running which means that fsck is not used in ZFS, very much unlike the ext2 system. Not having to check for inconsistencies allows for ZFS to save time and resources by not systematically going through a storage device. The FAT32 file system manages a storage device, and the ext2 file system also just manages a storage device, whereas the ZFS utilizes a volume manager that can control multiple storage devices, virtual or physical. It is easy to see that although these legacy file systems fulfill the basic role of storing and retrieving data they cannot be reasonably compared to ZFS.

	== '''Current File Systems''' ==		== '''Current File Systems''' ==

Lmundt: /* References */

2010-10-15T09:17:48Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:17, 15 October 2010
Line 181:		Line 181:

	* Rector Brent, (2004),[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479870.aspx "Chapter 4. Storage"], Wise Owl Consulting		* Rector Brent, (2004),[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479870.aspx "Chapter 4. Storage"], Wise Owl Consulting

			==Notes==
			{{reflist}}