<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Less is More&#8211;Part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://storageoptimization.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/less-is-more-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://storageoptimization.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/less-is-more-part-2/</link>
	<description>Exploring Storage In an Online World</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 05:05:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: draft_ceo</title>
		<link>http://storageoptimization.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/less-is-more-part-2/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>draft_ceo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 05:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://storageoptimization.wordpress.com/?p=8#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Authentication and access control are a very small problem of a filesystem, and they generally are not of much cost.  The same goes for locking, etc.

In web 2.0 systems, you will still need to traverse a directory path to reach the appropriate files.  And that needs to be fast like any other traditional filesystem requirement.  Reading and writing will also need to be fast like in a traditional filesystem.  I am trying to understand how these web 2.0 filesystems differ fundamentally from traditional filesystems.

I guess the main difference is that web 2.0 stuff is free, and they do not have to guard too much against data loss :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Authentication and access control are a very small problem of a filesystem, and they generally are not of much cost.  The same goes for locking, etc.</p>
<p>In web 2.0 systems, you will still need to traverse a directory path to reach the appropriate files.  And that needs to be fast like any other traditional filesystem requirement.  Reading and writing will also need to be fast like in a traditional filesystem.  I am trying to understand how these web 2.0 filesystems differ fundamentally from traditional filesystems.</p>
<p>I guess the main difference is that web 2.0 stuff is free, and they do not have to guard too much against data loss <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
