On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Karn Kallio <tierpluspluslists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I just noticed this out today on the arXiv : http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1103.4282 > The paper describes "stratified B-trees" and quoting from the abstract: > LOL. It looks like this paper is generated by a robot: "... Stratified B-trees don’t need block-size tuning, unlike B-trees. One major advantage is that they are naturally good candidates for SSDs – the Intel X25M can perform 35,000 random 4K reads/s, but must write in units of many MBs in order to fully utilise its performance. This massive asymmetry in block size makes life very hard..." How do you like: "to utilise performance", "massive asymmetry in block size".. > " > We describe the `stratified B-tree', which beats the CoW B-tree in every way. > In particular, it is the first versioned dictionary to achieve optimal > tradeoffs between space, query and update performance. Therefore, we believe > there is no longer a good reason to use CoW B-trees for versioned data stores. > " > > The paper mentions that a company called "Acunu" is developing an > implementation. > > Are these stratified B-trees something which the btrfs project could use? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
