Some kinds of storage like cloud-scale object storage use custom HDD firmwares and custom on-disk formats instead of filesystems (±2005-era tech), we also have much newer solutions that do direct work on disks like HMR (not to be confused with HAMR or HAMMER2) where the host manages the recording of data on the disk. There are some generally available systems for that, but we also have articles like this: https://blog.westerndigital.com/host-managed-smr-dropbox/ (Which mostly focuses on SMR but this works on CMR too).

As for the record size in the DB vs. Disk attributes, that's probably not used like that anymore, but I do know that filesystem chunks/extents/blocks are calculated and grouped to profit from optimal LBA access. If you run ZFS and have it auto-detect or manually set the ashift size to make it match the actual on-disk sector size. This was especially relevant when 512e and 4Kn (and the various manufactures 'real' and 'soft' implementations) weren't reliable indicators of the best sector access size strategies.

I'm going to guess that by "domain dependency" you're talking about how

   handle = open("foo.txt");

   err = db->exec("SELECT * from DIRECTORY where NAME = 'foo.txt';", &result);

The best thing you can say about the way UNIX decided to handle files was that it forced people to either use them as is or make up their own scheme within a file itself (and don't get me started on the hell that is 'holey' files)

[1] In my case the underlying data storage was a NAND flash chip so the result you got back which was nominally a FILE* like stdio had the direct address on flash of where the bits were. read-modify-write operations were slow since it effectively copied the file for that (preserving flash sector write lifetimes)

Most likely showing a 24x80 3270 console session, with 8x16 character cells (if that much), but, still, quite awesome.

I'm not aware of any that ended up in a museum, sadly.

For those with sufficiently cool IEEE memberships, there is quite a lot about Sabre in the Annals of the History of Computing magazine archives.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/397059

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1114868

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/279229, which is not about Sabre, but Air Canada's system.

If you think about it, modern IBM mainframes have a lot of weirdness about their filesystems and the concept of a file. Those machines are very alien for people who grew up on Unix.

Sounds like a record-oriented filesystem to me.

Which comes as no surprise as there is no difference between a database and a filesystem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_729

> has proper indexes

Does it matter where in the code the index lives? Are you arguing that databases don't have proper indexes or that filesystems don't? I'm not sure I'd agree with either argument.

> correct transactions

filesystems and databases have transactions, which one is "incorrect"?

> versionstamps (for both keys and values)

filesystems have timestamps, not sure what a versionstamp is but I suspect it's some domain specific name for a more general concept that both databases and filesystems utilize.

> streaming large amounts of data

many databases stream massive data and filesystems certainly do

> all of that in a distributed database

every major PaaS has some form of distributed filesystem

Making a FUSE file system is sort of a bucket list thing I haven’t gotten around to doing yet. Maybe I should hack something together while I am still unemployed…

https://github.com/divyenduz/zoid-fs

It had what was basically a normal UNIX filing system, complete with /dev, /etc and so on, and it had support for indexing extended attributes. Your app was expected to create an index with a specific API at install time, and then after that writes to the indexed xattr would update a special "index directory". The OS could be given a simple query predicate with range and glob matching, and it would answer using the indexes, including a live query.

This was neat, but you could implement the same feature in Linux pretty easily. Nobody ever has, probably because xattrs historically didn't work that well. They don't get transmitted via common network protocols and have a history of getting lost when archiving, although I think these days every archive format in real use supports storing them.

There's also the question of how it interacts with POSIX file permissions. BeOS was an aggressively single user system so just didn't care. On Linux you'd need to think about how files that you can't read are treated in the indexing process.

Multiple devices also poses problems. BeOS simply required that apps create an index on a specific device themselves. If you plugged in a USB drive then files there just wouldn't show up in search unless the files had been created by not only BeOS, but an app you had previously installed. Note that installing an app post-hoc didn't work because creating an index didn't populate it with existing files, even if they had the right xattrs.

And of course it only worked with files. If you had content where the user's conception of a thing didn't map 1:1 to files, it was useless. For example you couldn't index elements within a document this way. Spotlight can index app states and screens, which also obviously BeOS couldn't do.

So there were a lot of limitations to this.

The modern equivalent would be writing a search plugin:

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corespotlight/maki...

The API is more complex but lets you create search results that aren't directly tied to specific filing systems.

Aren't all databases specialized?

> Cairo was the codename for a project at Microsoft from 1991 to 1996. Its charter was to build technologies for a next-generation operating system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_(operating_system)

The issue with the filesystem-as-database concept is that unless you're doing it as a serverside thing to get RDBMS features for files, it doesn't give you much more power without very serious changes to applications.

The first problem is that databases are most useful when they index things, but files are just binary blobs in arbitrary formats. To index the contents you have to figure out what they are and parse them to derive interesting data. This is not best done by the filesystem itself though - you want it to be asynchronous, running in userspace and (these days) ideally sandboxed. This is expensive and so you don't want to do it on the critical file write path. Nowadays there are tools like Spotlight that do it this way and are useful enough.

If you don't do that then when it comes time to sell your shiny fs-as-a-db feature for upgrade dollars, you have to admit that your db doesn't actually index anything because no apps are changed to use it. Making them do so requires rewriting big parts from scratch. In that era I think the Office format was still essentially just memory dumps of internal data structures, done for efficiency, so making Office store documents as native database tables would have been a huge project and not yielded much benefit over simple text indexing using asynchronous plugins to a userspace search service.

Another problem is that databases aren't always great at indexing into the middle of blobs and changing them. Sometimes db engines want to copy values if you change them, because they're optimised for lots of tiny values (row column values) and not small numbers of huge values. But apps often want to write into the middle of files or append to them.

Yet another problem is that apps are very sensitive to filesystem performance (that's why the fs runs in the kernel to begin with). But databases do more work, so can be slower, which would make everything feel laggy.

So yeah it was a beautiful vision but it didn't work out. Note that operating systems started with databases as their native data storage mechanism in the mainframe era, and that was moved away from, because there are lots of things you want to store that aren't naturally database-y (images, videos, audio, source code etc).

IIRC read only access worked well but I had issues getting write access working.

The more sophisticated the database kernel, the more the OS is treated like little more than a device driver.

And most journaling filesystems actually get in the way of databases which try to commit their own changelog to disk.

For example, instead of an OpenOffice document being a zip of XMLs, you'd just use a directory of XMLs, and then replace the XMLs with directories of tiny files for the attributes and node contents. Instead of a daemon having a config file, you'd just have a directory of tiny files. He claimed that apps weren't written that way already because filesystems were wasteful when files got too tiny.

Git is an example of a program that uses this technique, to some extent at least (modulo packfiles).

In reality, although that may have contributed, there are other reasons why people bundle data up into individual files. To disaggregate things (which is a good place to start if you want a filesystem-db merge) you also have to solve all those other reasons, which ReiserFS never did and as a project that "only" wanted to reinvent the FS, could not have solved.

Apple hit some of those issues when they tried making iLife documents be NeXT bundles:

1. Filesystem explorers treat files and directories differently for UI purposes. Apple solved it nicely by teaching the Finder to show bundle directories as if they were files unless you right click and select "Show contents". Or rather partly solved ... until you send data to friends using Windows, or Google Drive, or anything other than the Finder.

2. Network protocols like HTTP and MIME only understand files, not directories. In particular there is no standardised serialisation format for a directory beyond zip. Not solved. iLife migrated from bundles to a custom file format partly due to this problem, I think.

3. Operating systems provide much richer APIs for files than directories. You can monitor a file for changes, but if you want to monitor a directory tree, you have to iterate and do it yourself. You can lock a file against changes, but not a directory tree. You can check if a file has been modified by looking at its mtime, but there's no recursive mtime for directory trees. You can update files transactionally by writing to a temporary file and renaming, but you can't atomically replace a directory tree. Etc.

So the ReiserFS concept wasn't fully fleshed out, even if it had been accepted into the kernel. Our foundational APIs and protocols just aren't geared up for it. I've sometimes thought it'd be a neat retirement project one day to build an OS where files and directories are more closely merged as a concept, so files can have sub-files that you can browse into using 'cd' and so on, and those API/protocol gaps are closed. It wouldn't give you a full relational database but it'd be much more feasible to port apps to such an OS than to rewrite everything to use classical database APIs and semantics

Much of the consumer-facing niceties of it got implemented in search tools that track metadata separately.

When RecordLayer launched, I tested it out by building a catalog system that we could evolve and add new services with a single repository of protobuf schemas.

About every six months I do a fire drill and completely factory reset my macbook. Takes about 10 minutes for me to go from a fresh device to one that has all my apps, data, and developer tools ready to roll. Only annoying thing you can't really automate is signing into services like OneDrive or Dropbox, but this isn't a problem if you use iCloud Drive.

https://github.com/eh8/dotfiles

Redundancy because the thing most people care about backing up is media and important documents, which are likely already stored in iCloud. If you care about Time Machine back ups you probably want your whole filesystem with point-in-time restores. That's a lot more data for Apple to hang onto, for a small segment of its target market. Of course, Apple does have 2TB+ iCloud+ plans, but I would bet that the average iCloud+ subscriber is using nowhere near their limit.

You can simply mirror the writes to both systems, and then migrate the old data underneath. As long as the data transfer preserves the cell level timestamps, the read path resolves any differences and compaction will eventually clean up any duplicates. (and sstable loads will have the timestamps)

Dynamodb does NOT have cell level timestamps, I believe they have row level timestamps. How it is doing globally replicated data and mutation merges: I have no idea. It seemed like a handwave when they were announcing it about two or three years ago.

Doh!

You might also be told that you are supposed to delete those messages on every device and that if you expect it to work automatically then you don’t get it.