This raises some comments:
- No discussion there is a need for in-memory databases.
- RAM and network evolutions are changing the database space. And maybe the impact of network evolution is even more important than the RAM.
- RAM disks exist for a long time in OS.
- USB keys are a kind of disk on RAM.
- The notion of keeping information alive once the box is stopped is important. Yes, at the end the disk could be mostly used for archiving rather than for storing.
- Most current database technologies are cluttered by disk access APIs, this also includes db4o, HSQLDB and the like.
- That said, as opposed to what Nati said, some advanced database technologies (like Oracle and Versant for instance) are able to bypass OS stream-oriented disk APIs and can directly manage the disk space.
- Having caches in database engines will not olve the problem, this remembers me the first white papers from TimesTen, 12 years ago.
- RAM and network evolutions are changing the database space. And maybe the impact of network evolution is even more important than the RAM.
- New technologies won't replace existing ones, they complement them.
- 15 years ago, some were predicting the death of mainframes... they are still predominant.
- Disk technologies can still be improved, see Cameron Purdy's comment for instance.
- Disks have seen the most impressive progression among the various computers components since 20 years.
- In-memory data grids (IMDG) won't eliminate the need for ORM (and Universal mapping, when extended to non-relational data stores and non-object consumers).
- They just put it in a different place, in an intermediate box.
This all leads us to the notion of a Data Services Platform. Which includes a cache, but is not limited to a cache. The Data Access Layer will become even more important than the database itself which will become the storage layer.
No comments:
Post a Comment