4 ms·
Databases don’t have to use a file-system - look at old Big Iron systems where the database is the file-system. In the context of Linux/Unix/etc, the file-syst
by DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
Databases don’t have to use a file-system - look at old Big Iron systems where the database is the file-system.
In the context of Linux/Unix/etc, the file-system is just another API for the OS - consider /dev/null or /proc - those are certainly in the file-system but they aren’t tied to persistent storage.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoDatabases don’t have to use a file-system I didn't say they did. consider /dev/null or /proc - those are certainly in the file-system but they aren’t tied to persistent storage. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y agoMy point is that no definition of the term “file-system” makes any guarantees about persistence, whereas I interpreted your post saying this: > > The whole point of a DB is to remember the data after power cycle. > You are thinking of a file system. …as though you’re saying only an FS can persist data.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoNo, I'm saying that persisting data is mainly what a filesystem is about unless you go into some pedantic nonsense trying to tear apart a general statement.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y agoOkay, let’s just agree to disagree then.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoThis is like someone saying memory is about storing data while the computer is on and someone else trying to start an argument by saying that sometimes memory addresses are used to communicate with video cards.