Re: Plans for 1.8+ (2.0?)

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Rupert Pigott wrote:
> > I don't know if IBM's GridFS does any better with the latency, but it
> > certainly scales a lot better but the barrier for adoption is $$$. It
> > costs $$$ and it costs a lot more $$$ to train up and hire the SAs to run
> > it. There are other options like AFS too, but people tend to be put 
> > off by
> > the learning curve and the fact it's an extra rather than something that
> > is packaged with the OS.
>
> Do you happen to have links to GridFS and other systems you mentioned?
>
> cheers
>  simon

Google, surprisingly, did not find Big Blue's 'RedBook' fingerprints so much as 
University work, some with Government funding (US, Chinese, Brazilain, rench, et 
al):

Overview with more links:

http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/Projects/Infrastructure/gridafs.html

a(free) .pdf:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0303241/proc/papers/THAT005.PDF



Standards bodies (fee):

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=34198&arnumber=1630912&count=73&index=25

http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CCGRID.2006.141



Other (fee) publications

http://www.springerlink.com/content/5xpry6xu0nnwrwcd/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rdrdbu6pgeanxgqu/


- most citations indicate implementations that appear to rely heavily on AFS legacy.


Also of interest 'Distributed Shared Memory':

http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/laurent.lefevre/dsm2006/


But a brief scan of those that were 'free' brings up the question:

'Just who is it that actually NEEDS this anyway?'

Bill Hacker