That's kinda where I was going with all this - although my personal belief is that there should be 2 underlying storage schemes (which I've referred to as structured and unstructured), I can see where one makes sense.
I am waiting, however, for the SQL style front end to Exchange and my file system.[1] -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. [1] I know OLEDB provides some of this, but I'm talking seamless here. I want it all, darn it![2] [2] After all, I am the one that wants the Exchange event sink that grabs an email, generated automatically from my wireless PDA with GPS at just the right time, in order to start the coffee so its hot and fresh right when I walk in the building. > -----Original Message----- > From: Narkinsky, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Add junior admin to Local > workstations admin grou p > > > Well isn't NTFS or really any file system really a simple database? > > The way it is looking to me is not so much "SQL everywhere!" > but "WinFS > everywhere!". And WinFS has borrowed heavily from SQL technology. > > Not sure I am using WinFS right here maybe... WinFS is just the > CIFS/SMB/drive letter interface to this new technology. But > I am calling > this new technology WinFS for now. > > The question to me is how will the systems really look? > > I mean will WinFS simply be an NTFS partition with a Database > on it? That is > basically a SQL database. > > Or will WinFS basically be a partition with no NTFS. That is > a file system > unto itself. > > > Brian > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 7:00 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Add junior admin to Local > workstations admin grou p > > Its absolutely going to be a fun ride, that's for sure. > > I'm VERY interested in seeing how they choose to overcome the inherent > limitations in the structured vs. unstructuctured debate. I'm > starting to be > of the opinion that structured data storage is going the way > of the dodo - > again because of increases in raw horsepower, the speed > benefit provided by > structured storage might no longer be worth the distiction. > > That being said, technically NTFS IS structured storage - I > burn a cluster > no matter how small the amount of data being stored. So that begs the > questions of "can we make everything fit into a reasonable structured > storage model?" (answer is obviously yes) and "Can we make > the structure > modifiable?" (I'd assume yes). > > The latter question is akin to saying "Can we make hard drive > clusters in > different sizes?" That's been done for 20+ years, IIRC. So > maybe the future > engine is SQL server with variable page sizes rather than > fixed 8k pages. > Maybe going as far as different page sizes per "database" - > where a database > could be a file system or anything else for that matter. > > Interesting indeed. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rick Kingslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 6:15 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Add junior admin to Local > > workstations admin grou p > > > > > > True enough, Roger. I won't in any way disagree that this > > was the case. > > But, there have been some changes - rhetoric or not, I can't > > say. But, we > > were told in what is now a public transcript that the > future database > > technology that would be first introduced in Yukon would be > pervasive > > throughout the server line, and most prevalent in the AD > > database and the > > Exchange stores. > > > > Granted - I know the issues with database technology and the > > limitations. > > Hence, one of the reasons that I am so interested to see > the 'preview' > > release of the Longhorn code as the WinFS should be a telling > > factor as to > > how far they really do have to go. > > > > Now, are there going to be derivations (hence structured, > > unstructured)? I > > suspect yes. Clearly, the EDB that is used for NTDS is > > similar but not the > > same as that used for Exchange. > > > > And, do I think that exposing an interface such as what you > > describe for > > doing the work that we do would be unwelcome? In fact, I > > think that it > > would have over-whelming acceptance from the Professional > > maintainers such > > as ourselves - as long as there was the 'dumbified' interface > > for everyone > > else and for the one-off chores. > > > > To say the least (as if it's not always....) the next few > > years are going to > > be very interesting as these products develop. > > > > Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT > > Microsoft MVP - Active Directory > > Associate Expert > > Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Roger Seielstad > > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:34 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Add junior admin to Local > > workstations admin grou p > > > > The actual prognostication I heard at a Windows NT5 preview > > (pick your date > > based on *that* statement) was that we'd have two data stores > > - one for > > structured (i.e. SQL) data and the other for unstructured > (i.e. email, > > files, etc) data. So, the idea was that NTFS (version ??) > > would handle email > > storage. Think of what's out there with RIS today for SIS in > > a file tree - > > but on a full filesystem scale. > > > > There's a performance penalty, quite significantly so, for > > variable length > > fields, in databases. At some point, the system bus speeds > > will stop being > > the bottlenecks, and they'll have to consider issues like in > > building data > > stores. > > > > The published information has led me to believe that its more > > a data storage > > strategy rather than a product. I also think that there's a > difference > > between the front end and back end technologies, and > > significant benefits to > > be had from building a unified front end to distict back > > ends. I mean, can > > you imagine build your own folders?? > > select mailfrom, subject, date, size from email_messages where > > mailfrom = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > Or would that be: > > delete from email_messages where mailfrom = > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"... > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rick Kingslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:29 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Add junior admin to Local > > workstations admin > > > grou p > > > > > > > > > Well, let's be a bit cautious on that statement. What I > > understand to > > > be the case is that: (and this is widely publicized - I was > > put under > > > severe NDA - then Bill Gates talked about it 1 day after I was > > > threatened within an inch of my life.....) > > > > > > Microsoft has this new, cool DB technology that is being used in: > > > > > > * Yukon - the next version of SQL Server > > > * Longhorn Client for the file system (WinFS) > > > * Future server versions for AD database (Longhorn server, > > Blackcombe > > > - you figure it out) > > > * Future versions of Exchange for store database > > > * etc, etc, etc. > > > > > > Now, one might this that this is all really suprising and a > > sweeping > > > change. > > > And, by some rights, it is. But, if you take a look at the > > store and > > > AD > > > (ntds) database today - they're very much the same; and > strikingly > > > similar to SQL 2000. > > > > > > The big change is really the file system. > > > > > > So, to say that Exchange is going to be based on SQL, > yeah, that's > > > pretty much true. But, then, so will AD, and WinFS - but > > SQL will be > > > based on a base technology that is shared amongst the > entire server > > > family. > > > > > > I haven't had the DBAs over lately trying to convince upper > > management > > > that they own Exchange or AD - and that's not likely to > > happen in the > > > next iteration, either. Do I think that you need to get to > > know Yukon > > > (which will likely be the first PUBLICLLY available (not beta, not > > > preview) code of > > > the next gen database, ummmmm. Yeah. That might be a > really good > > > idea. > > > > > > Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT > > > Microsoft MVP - Active Directory > > > Associate Expert > > > Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Costanzo, Ray > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:53 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Add junior admin to Local > > workstations admin > > > grou p > > > > > > Let's not forget about SQL Server here, which will > replace Exchange. > > > > > > Ray at work > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Scary part is that Exchange is still one of the best products > > > Microsoft's ever put out. Just takes someone who really > > understands it > > > to run it.. > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > > > ************** > > > ****************************** > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is > > intended only for > > > the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. > > > Distribution, publication, or retransmission of this message is > > > strictly prohibited. This message may be a bank to client > > > communication and as such is priviliged and confidential. > > > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an > > > agent responsible for delivering it to the intended > > recipient, you are > > > hereby notified that you have received this document in > > error and that > > > any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this > > message is > > > strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in > > > error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete > > the original > > > message. > > > > > > The sender of this e-mail specifically "opts-out" of the > Electronic > > > Signatures and Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign) > > and any and > > > all similar state and federal acts. Accordingly, but without > > > limitation, any and all documents, contracts, and ageements must > > > contain a handwritten signature of the sender to be legal, > > valid, and > > > enforceable. > > > ************************************************************** > > > ************** > > > ****************************** > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > > List archive: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > List info : > > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > > List archive: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > > List info : > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
