A database file system is a file system that is a database instead of a hierarchy. Not too complex an idea initially but I thought I'd ask if anyone has thought about how they might do something like this? What are the issues that a simple plan is likely to miss? My first guess at an implementation would be something like a filesystem to for a Linux platform (probably atop an existing file system) but I really don't know much about how that would be started. Its a passing thought that I doubt I'd ever follow through on but I'm hoping to at least satisfy my curiosity.
DBFS is a really nice PoC implementation for KDE. Instead of implementing it as a file system directly, it is based on indexing on a traditional file system, and building a new user interface to make the results accessible to users.
The easiest way would be to build it using fuse, with a database back-end.
A more difficult thing to do is to have it as a kernel module (VFS).
On Windows, you could use IFS.
I'm not really sure what you mean with "A database file system is a file system that is a database instead of a hierarchy".
Probably, using "Filesystem in Userspace" (FUSE), as mentioned by Osama ALASSIRY, is a good idea. The FUSE wiki lists a lot of existing projects about databased-backed filesystems as well as filesystems in which you can search by SQL-like queries.
Maybe this is a good starting point for getting an idea how it could work.
It's a basic overview of the Firebird architecture.
Firebird is an opensource RDBMS, so you can have a real deep insight look, too, if you're interested.
Its been a while since you asked this. I'm surprised no one suggested the obvious. Look at mainframes and minis, especially iSeries-OS (now called IBM-i used to be called iOS or OS/400).
How to do an relational database as a mass data store is relatively easy. Oracle and MySQL both have these. The catch is it must be essentially ubiquitous for end user applications.
So the steps for an app conversion are:
1) Everything in a normal hierarchical filesystem
2) Data in BLOBs with light metadata in the database. File with some catalogue information.
3) Large data in BLOBs with extensive metadata and complex structures in the database. File with substantial metadata associated with it that can be essentially to understanding the structure.
4) Internal structures of the BLOB exposed in an object <--> Relational map with extensive meta-data. While there may be an exportable form, the application naturally works with the database, the notion of the file as the repository is lost.
Related
I'm running a website that handles multimedia uploads for one of its primary uses.
I'm wondering what are the best practices or industry standard for organizing alot of user uploaded files on a server.
Your question is exceptionally broad, but I'll assume you are talking about storage/organisation/hierarchy of the files (rather than platform/infrastructure).
A typical approach for organisation is to upload files to a 3 level hierarchical structure based on the filename itself.
Eg. Filename = "My_Video_12.mpg"
Which would then be stored in,
/M/Y/_/My_Video_12.mpg
Or another example, "a9usfkj_0001.jpg"
/a/9/u/a9usfkj_0001.jpg
This way, you end up with a manageable structure that makes it easy to locate a file's location simply based on its name. It also ensures that directories do not grow to a huge scale and become incredibly slow to access.
Just an idea, but it might be worth being more explicit as to what your question is actually about.
I don't think you are going get any concrete answers unless you give more context and describe what the use-case are for the files. Like any other technology decision, the 'best practice' is always going to be a compromise between the different functional and non-functional requirements, and as such the question needs a lot more context to yield answers that you can go and act upon.
Having said that, here are some of the strategies I would consider sound options:
1) Use the conventions dictated by the consumer of the files.
For instance, if the files are going to be used by a CMS/publishing solution, that system probably has some standardized solution for handling files.
2) Use a third party upload solution. There are a bunch of tools that can help guide you to a solution that solves your specific problem. Tools like Transloadit, Zencoder and Encoding all have different options for handling uploads. Having a look at those options should give you and idea of what could be considered "industry standard".
3) Look at proved solutions, and mimic the parts that fit your use-case. There are open-source solutions that handles the sort of things you are describing here. Have a look at the different plugins to for example paperclip, to learn how they organize files, or more importantly, what abstractions do they provide that lets you change your mind when the requirements change.
4) Design your own solution. Do a spike, it's one of the most efficient ways of exposing requirements you haven't thought about. Try integrating one of the tools mentioned above, and see how it goes. Software is soft, so no decision is final. Maybe the best solution is to just try something, and change it when it doesn't fit anymore.
This is probably not the concrete answer you were looking for, but like I mentioned in the beginning, design decisions are always a trade-off, "best-practice" in one context could be the worst solution in another context :)
Best off luck!
From what I understand you want a suggestion on how to store the files. If is that what you want, I would suggest you to have 2 different storage systems for your files.
The first storage would be a place to store the physical file, like a directory on your server (w/o FTP enabled, accessible or not to browsers, ...) or go for Amazon s3 (aws.amazon.com/en/s3/), Rackspace CloudFiles (www.rackspace.com/cloud/cloud_hosting_products/files/) or any other storage solution (you can even choose dropbox, if you want). All of these options offers APIs to save/retrieve the files.
The second storage would be a database, to index and control the files. On the DB, that could be MySQL, MSSQL or a non-relational database, like Amazon DynamoDB or SimpleSQL, you set the link to you file (http link, the path to the file or anything like this).
Also, on the DB you can control and store any metadata of the file you want and choose one or many #ebaxt's solutions to get it. The metadata can be older versions of the file, the words of a text file, the camera-model and geo-location of a picture, etc. Of course it depends on your needs and how it will be really used. You have a very large number of options, but without more info of what you intend to do is hard to suggest you a solution.
On Amazon tutorials area (http://aws.amazon.com/articles/Amazon-S3?browse=1) you can find many papers about it, like Netflix's Transition to High-Availability Storage Systems, Using the Java Persistence API with Amazon SimpleDB and Petboard: An ASP.NET Sample Using Amazon S3 and Amazon SimpleDB
Regards.
Anyone know of a commercially available file based storage system that meets the following requirements:
Should not require installation
Should provide APIs to read and write onto the storage system, preferably .net APIs
Paid/Free (either way it should be supported)
Should be fast and efficient
Basically I am looking for something with database like functionality with the least footprint.
Take a look at Sqlite. It has become the standard solution for a file based database solution - it's even built in to the iPhone, Firefox and many other high profile software/devices.
My Google-fu gave me this simple tutorial of using Sqlite with .net: sqlite-on-dotnet-in-3-mins
Try MongoDB it's a file based document database. Installing it is done by copying it's files and it has a C# driver to read/write data from it.
Here are some thoughts about your question.
The "file based storage system" means "data base" in this context.
Some comments by requirements.
2.1. The first requirement "Should not require installation" means "Embedded database".
2.2. The second requirement "Should provide APIs to read and write ..." is natural for all databases. They all have such API.
2.3. The third requirement "Should be fast and efficient" is a really interesting thing. Here is one of the links by this issue with a lot of useful information Comparison of relational database management systems.
And, finally if you are looking for "something with database like functionality with the least footprint" the basic choice will be SQLite.
It is a small C library that implements a self-contained, embeddable, zero-configuration SQL database engine. There is no set up procedure to initialize it before using it. Databases need minimal or no administration. There is no need to maintain a separate server process dedicated to SQLite. It stores an entire database in a single, ordinary native file that can reside anywhere in a directory of the native file system. Any user who has a permission to read the file can read anything from the database.
We've been discussing design of a data warehouse strategy within our group for meeting testing, reproducibility, and data syncing requirements. One of the suggested ideas is to adapt a NoSQL approach using an existing tool rather than try to re-implement a whole lot of the same on a file system. I don't know if a NoSQL approach is even the best approach to what we're trying to accomplish but perhaps if I describe what we need/want you all can help.
Most of our files are large, 50+ Gig in size, held in a proprietary, third-party format. We need to be able to access each file by a name/date/source/time/artifact combination. Essentially a key-value pair style look-up.
When we query for a file, we don't want to have to load all of it into memory. They're really too large and would swamp our server. We want to be able to somehow get a reference to the file and then use a proprietary, third-party API to ingest portions of it.
We want to easily add, remove, and export files from storage.
We'd like to set up automatic file replication between two servers (we can write a script for this.) That is, sync the contents of one server with another. We don't need a distributed system where it only appears as if we have one server. We'd like complete replication.
We also have other smaller files that have a tree type relationship with the Big files. One file's content will point to the next and so on, and so on. It's not a "spoked wheel," it's a full blown tree.
We'd prefer a Python, C or C++ API to work with a system like this but most of us are experienced with a variety of languages. We don't mind as long as it works, gets the job done, and saves us time. What you think? Is there something out there like this?
Have you had a look at MongoDB's GridFS.
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/GridFS+Specification
You can query files by the default metadata, plus your own additional metadata. Files are broken out into small chunks and you can specify which portions you want. Also, files are stored in a collection (similar to a RDBMS table) and you get Mongo's replication features to boot.
Whats wrong with a proven cluster file system? Lustre and ceph are good candidates.
If you're looking for an object store, Hadoop was built with this in mind. In my experience Hadoop is a pain to work with and maintain.
For me both Lustre and Ceph has some problems that databases like Cassandra dont have. I think the core question here is what disadvantage Cassandra and other databases like it would have as a FS backend.
Performance could obviously be one. What about space usage? Consistency?
The company I work for is trying to switch a product that uses flat file format to a database format. We're handling pretty big files of data (ie: 25GB/file) and they get updated really quick. We need to run queries that randomly access the data, as well as in a contiguous way. I am trying to convince them of the advantages of using a database, but some of my colleagues seem reluctant to this. So I was wondering if you guys can help me out here with some reasons or links to posts of why we should use databases, or at least clarify why flat files are better (if they are).
Databases can handle querying
tasks, so you don't have to walk
over files manually. Databases can
handle very complicated queries.
Databases can handle indexing tasks,
so if tasks like get record with id
= x can be VERY fast
Databases can handle multiprocess/multithreaded access.
Databases can handle access from
network
Databases can watch for data
integrity
Databases can update data easily
(see 1) )
Databases are reliable
Databases can handle transactions
and concurrent access
Databases + ORMs let you manipulate
data in very programmer friendly way.
This is an answer I've already given some time ago:
It depends entirely on the
domain-specific application needs. A
lot of times direct text file/binary
files access can be extremely fast,
efficient, as well as providing you
all the file access capabilities of
your OS's file system.
Furthermore, your programming language
most likely already has a built-in
module (or is easy to make one) for
specific parsing.
If what you need is many appends
(INSERTS?) and sequential/few access
little/no concurrency, files are the
way to go.
On the other hand, when your
requirements for concurrency,
non-sequential reading/writing,
atomicity, atomic permissions, your
data is relational by the nature etc.,
you will be better off with a
relational or OO database.
There is a lot that can be
accomplished with SQLite3, which
is extremely light (under 300kb), ACID
compliant, written in C/C++, and
highly ubiquitous (if it isn't already
included in your programming language
-for example Python-, there is surely one available). It can be useful even
on db files as big as 140 terabytes, or 128 tebibytes (Link to Database Size), possible
more.
If your requirements where bigger,
there wouldn't even be a discussion,
go for a full-blown RDBMS.
As you say in a comment that "the system" is merely a bunch of scripts, then you should take a look at pgbash.
Don't build it if you can buy it.
I heard this quote recently, and it really seems fitting as a guide line. Ask yourself this... How much time was spent working on the file handling portion of your app? I suspect a fair amount of time was spent optimizing this code for performance. If you had been using a relational database all along, you would have spent considerably less time handling this portion of your application. You would have had more time for the true "business" aspect of your app.
They're faster; unless you're loading the entire flat file into memory, a database will allow faster access in almost all cases.
They're safer; databases are easier to safely backup; they have mechanisms to check for file corruption, which flat files do not. Once corruption in your flat file migrates to your backups, you're done, and you might not even know it yet.
They have more features; databases can allow many users to read/write at the same time.
They're much less complex to work with, once they're setup.
What types of files is not mentioned. If they're media files, go ahead with flat files. You probably just need a DB for tags and some way to associate the "external BLOBs" to the records in the DB. But if full text search is something you need, there's no other way to go but migrate to a full DB.
Another thing, your filesystem might provide the ceiling as far as number of physical files are concerned.
Databases all the way.
However, if you still have a need for storing files, don't have the capacity to take on a new RDBMS (like Oracle, SQLServer, etc), than look into XML.
XML is a structure file format which offers you the ability to store things as a file but give you query power over the file and data within it. XML Files are easier to read than flat files and can be easily transformed applying an XSLT for even better human-readability. XML is also a great way to transport data around if you must.
I strongly suggest a DB, but if you can't go that route, XML is an ok second.
What about a non-relational (NoSQL) database such as Amazon's SimpleDB, Tokio Cabinet, etc? I've heard that Google, Facebook, LinkedIn are using these to store their huge datasets.
Can you tell us if your data is structured, if your schema is fixed, if you need easy replicability, if access times are important, etc?
Difference between database and flat files are given below:
Database provide more flexibility whereas flat file provide less flexibility.
Database system provide data consistency whereas flat file can not provide data consistency.
Database is more secure over flat files.
Database support DML and DDL whereas flat files can not support these.
Less data redundancy in database whereas more data redundancy in flat files.
SQL ad hoc query abilities are enough of a reason for me. With a good schema and indexing on the tables, this is fast and effective and will have good performance.
Unless you are loading the files into memory each time you boot, use a database. Simple as that.
That is assuming that your colleges already have the program to handle queries to the files. If not, then use a database.
Although other answers are good, I would like to emphasize a point that was not really well talked about:
The developer's ease of use. databases are much simpler to work with! If you don't have any strong reason(s) for using files, use a database.
I'm writing a CAD (Computer-Aided Design) application. I'll need to ship a library of 3d objects with this product. These are simple objects made up of nothing more than 3d coordinates and there are going to be no more than about 300 of them.
I'm considering using a relational database for this purpose. But given my simple needs, I don't want any thing complicated. Till now, I'm leaning towards SQLite. It's small, runs within the client process and is claimed to be fast. Besides I'm a poor guy and it's free.
But before I commit myself to SQLite, I just wish to ask your opinion whether it is a good choice given my requirements. Also is there any equivalent alternative that I should try as well before making a decision?
Edit:
I failed to mention earlier that the above-said CAD objects that I'll ship are not going to be immutable. I expect the user to edit them (change dimensions, colors etc.) and save back to the library. I also expect users to add their own newly-created objects. Kindly consider this in your answers.
(Thanks for the answers so far.)
The real thing to consider is what your program does with the data. Relational databases are designed to handle complex relationships between sets of data. However, they're not designed to perform complex calculations.
Also, the amount of data and relative simplicity of it suggests to me that you could simply use a flat file to store the coordinates and read them into memory when needed. This way you can design your data structures to more closely reflect how you're going to be using this data, rather than how you're going to store it.
Many languages provide a mechanism to write data structures to a file and read them back in again called serialization. Python's pickle is one such library, and I'm sure you can find one for whatever language you use. Basically, just design your classes or data structures as dictated by how they're used by your program and use one of these serialization libraries to populate the instances of that class or data structure.
edit: The requirement that the structures be mutable doesn't really affect much with regard to my answer - I still think that serialization and deserialization is the best solution to this problem. The fact that users need to be able to modify and save the structures necessitates a bit of planning to ensure that the files are updated completely and correctly, but ultimately I think you'll end up spending less time and effort with this approach than trying to marshall SQLite or another embedded database into doing this job for you.
The only case in which a database would be better is if you have a system where multiple users are interacting with and updating a central data repository, and for a case like that you'd be looking at a database server like MySQL, PostgreSQL, or SQL Server for both speed and concurrency.
You also commented that you're going to be using C# as your language. .NET has support for serialization built in so you should be good to go.
I suggest you to consider using H2, it's really lightweight and fast.
When you say you'll have a library of 300 3D objects, I'll assume you mean objects for your code, not models that users will create.
I've read that object databases are well suited to help with CAD problems, because they're perfect for chasing down long reference chains that are characteristic of complex models. Perhaps something like db4o would be useful in your context.
How many objects are you shipping? Can you define each of these Objects and their coordinates in an xml file? So basically use a distinct xml file for each object? You can place these xml files in a directory. This can be a simple structure.
I would not use a SQL database. You can easy describe every 3D object with an XML file. Pack this files in a directory and pack (zip) all. If you need easy access to the meta data of the objects, you can generate an index file (only with name or description) so not all objects must be parsed and loaded to memory (nice if you have something like a library manager)
There are quick and easy SAX parsers available and you can easy write a XML writer (or found some free code you can use for this).
Many similar applications using XML today. Its easy to parse/write, human readable and needs not much space if zipped.
I have used Sqlite, its easy to use and easy to integrate with own objects. But I would prefer a SQL database like Sqlite more for applications where you need some good searching tools for a huge amount of data records.
For the specific requirement i.e. to provide a library of objects shipped with the application a database system is probably not the right answer.
First thing that springs to mind is that you probably want the file to be updatable i.e. you need to be able to drop and updated file into the application without changing the rest of the application.
Second thing is that the data you're shipping is immutable - for this purpose therefore you don't need the capabilities of a relational db, just to be able to access a particular model with adequate efficiency.
For simplicity (sort of) an XML file would do nicely as you've got good structure. Using that as a basis you can then choose to compress it, encrypt it, embed it as a resource in an assembly (if one were playing in .NET) etc, etc.
Obviously if SQLite stores its data in a single file per database and if you have other reasons to need the capabilities of a db in you storage system then yes, but I'd want to think about the utility of the db to the app as a whole first.
SQL Server CE is free, has a small footprint (no service running), and is SQL Server compatible