Will Microsoft LongHorn require 2GB of Ram?

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: toattett
When they invented RAID, the intention was to reduced cost!!

That's because back then it was cheaper to buy a couple of small disks and RAID them into a larger drive, or
use RAID mirroring to protect critical data, than it was to pay the premium for a much bigger disk.

Therefore, RAID stands for "Reductant Array of Inexpensive Disks", later they changed it to "Reductant Array of Independent Disks" so that they can use expensive disks.

Actually, both terms are still in common usage. The important terms are Redundant Array of Disks. The "I" is only a qualifier that
has meaning to the purchasing manager.

 

[MrControversial]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: MrControversial
All joking aside, though, I won't be surprised if PC manufacturers start implementing some form of RAID for Longhorn. As you may or may not know, it uses a whole new file system called WinFS that uses a relational database to store files. So you'll be able to query files based on a number of attributes. You can even write custom queries in SQL to query files. WinFS on RAID0 would see a huge performance increase on theory alone.

Btw, RAID on DB servers is usually implimented for data-integrity, not performance. Performance is gained via lots of RAM on the server, and lots of RAM on the SCSI/FC HBA, along with the use of SSDs in some cases.

Most servers implement RAID5 which is data-integrity AND performance.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: MrControversial
Most servers implement RAID5 which is data-integrity AND performance.

No, writes to a RAID-5 array are much slower than to either a RAID-0 or RAID-1 array. Hence the need for big expensive caching RAID controllers with lots of RAM onboard and hardware offload for checksum calculations. Will Longhorn on the PC desktop require one of those two? I certainly hope not, and I just don't see that happening.

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
WinFS will not replace NTFS. The idea behind WinFS was more of an NTFS Plus, where the journaling and
indexing capabilities of the file system would be enhanced by the addition of a SQL Server-derived database component.
NTFS will still be the "basic" file structure on which WinFS runs.

WinFS does not need to be a huge database. The existing files can stay exactly as they are in NTFS. What WinFS adds
is the ability to create new relationships between individual files in ways that can enhance the user experience.
But the database itself does not need to contain those files, it just needs to keep track of the underlying file system
so it can record where those files are, and any relevant changes that occur to those files that it can then index.
Think of it as a journalling addon to the MFT, with a service component that actively

You are absolutely right. WinFS is on top of NTFS, and btw, the FS in WinFS means "Future Storage", not "File System".
I've played with alpha versions of LH that had WinFS (4051 and 4074), and it was really nice (although a little slow when a file was added to the default store, which is the only place on those builds that took advantage of WinFS). WinFS won't be in any of the betas AFAIK, because it won't be in the final release. We'll need to wait until LH SP1 before it's available.
As an aside, Apple has a very similar feature in their upcoming release of OS X (10.4 Tiger) called Spotlight. They obviously stole the idea from LH. The interesting thing is that they are releasing it a full 2 years before WinFS will be available.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: CQuinn
WinFS will not replace NTFS. The idea behind WinFS was more of an NTFS Plus, where the journaling and
indexing capabilities of the file system would be enhanced by the addition of a SQL Server-derived database component.
NTFS will still be the "basic" file structure on which WinFS runs.

WinFS does not need to be a huge database. The existing files can stay exactly as they are in NTFS. What WinFS adds
is the ability to create new relationships between individual files in ways that can enhance the user experience.
But the database itself does not need to contain those files, it just needs to keep track of the underlying file system
so it can record where those files are, and any relevant changes that occur to those files that it can then index.
Think of it as a journalling addon to the MFT, with a service component that actively

You are absolutely right. WinFS is on top of NTFS, and btw, the FS in WinFS means "Future Storage", not "File System".
I've played with alpha versions of LH that had WinFS (4051 and 4074), and it was really nice (although a little slow when a file was added to the default store, which is the only place on those builds that took advantage of WinFS). WinFS won't be in any of the betas AFAIK, because it won't be in the final release. We'll need to wait until LH SP1 before it's available.
As an aside, Apple has a very similar feature in their upcoming release of OS X (10.4 Tiger) called Spotlight. They obviously stole the idea from LH. The interesting thing is that they are releasing it a full 2 years before WinFS will be available.

Just agreeing

Of course, when Bill told us WinFS was out, LH was not as delayed either. Wonder if it will be added back because they have waited so long . BTW, Aero/Avalon for XP is now available as an Beta. Has its own Msmail newsgroup on the public server.

 

[R3MF]

my guess.

minimum ram = 256MB

minimum really = 512MB

comfortable ram = 1024MB

 

[MrControversial]

Screw the memory, I want to see the video requirements for Longhorn.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Originally posted by: R3MF
my guess.

minimum ram = 256MB

minimum really = 512MB

comfortable ram = 1024MB

my 2c


minimum ram = 128MB

minimum really = 512MB

comfortable ram = 1GB

AT spec = 2GB

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Spikesoldier

Originally posted by: R3MF
my guess.

minimum ram = 256MB

minimum really = 512MB

comfortable ram = 1024MB

my 2c


minimum ram = 128MB

minimum really = 512MB

comfortable ram = 1GB

AT spec = 2GB

I agree with the minimum, but I'd halve the others(well maybe not the AT spec since so many AT'ers love to overkill in the name of "feeling good", AKA placebo).

 

[MrControversial]

It's no placebo. My RAID0 loads Windows faster. It does! It does! It does!

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: MrControversial
...at 5400 RPM.

All joking aside, though, I won't be surprised if PC manufacturers start implementing some form of RAID for Longhorn. As you may or may not know, it uses a whole new file system called WinFS that uses a relational database to store files. So you'll be able to query files based on a number of attributes. You can even write custom queries in SQL to query files. WinFS on RAID0 would see a huge performance increase on theory alone.

WinFS is not going to be completed on time for Longhorn. However, an earlier version is supposed to appear for WinXP. Maybe at that time I will consider RAID-0.

 

[bersl2]

Feh. Somebody will probably write a database plugin for Reiser4 before WinFS will be released... and besides, BeOS provided relational database functionality with its file system.

/takes off gauntlet and collectively slaps the whole of the Anandtech forum
//flame on

 

[RelaxTheMind]

Originally posted by: toattett
When they invented RAID, the intention was to reduced cost!!
Therefore, RAID stands for "Reductant Array of Inexpensive Disks", later they changed it to "Reductant Array of Independent Disks" so that they can use expensive disks.

I was under the impression that RAID was invented for Redundancy. Uptime performance...

actually RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks"

 

[sharkeeper]

The purpose of RAID is for data AVAILABILITY!

AVAILABILITY!

say it!

AH - VAIL - AH - BILL - ITTY!

Think about it! If it ain't available, no money is made! Comprende?

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: bersl2
Feh. Somebody will probably write a database plugin for Reiser4 before WinFS will be released... and besides, BeOS provided relational database functionality with its file system.

Apple's already done it with HFS+ (as I've said earlier).

 

[mhillary]

NO. 512MB, 1GB maximum

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: bersl2
Feh. Somebody will probably write a database plugin for Reiser4 before WinFS will be released... and besides, BeOS provided relational database functionality with its file system.

Apple's already done it with HFS+ (as I've said earlier).

Hey, the only tools I really, really need are find and grep. Everything else is a bonus.

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: bersl2
Feh. Somebody will probably write a database plugin for Reiser4 before WinFS will be released... and besides, BeOS provided relational database functionality with its file system.

Apple's already done it with HFS+ (as I've said earlier).

Hey, the only tools I really, really need are find and grep. Everything else is a bonus.

rofl! find and grep are very handy. I like vi too.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: bersl2
[Hey, the only tools I really, really need are find and grep. Everything else is a bonus.

I realize this was intended to be somewhat humorous, but in reality, this is part of the problem with the way people use computers today. The traditional search tools are too slow for frequent searching and too coarse to find the specific content a user wants to find.

We avid computer users are generally well-organized. We comprehend the concept of compartmentalizing our data into "files" which belong to groupings called "folders". We even recognize that the best way to "find" files is to never lose them in the first place, and remember where we put them (i.e., a directory structure). So we don't really understand why this is such a big deal.

But the file/folder abstractions are not obvious to peple who have never used computers before. Such users don't really understand the concept of the file abstraction: they want to think about the content itself. They think about songs. They think about spreadsheets. They think about documents. In other words, they want to think about the content objects they're interacting with, not the files (and support files, backup files, etc) that "contain" that content.

WinFS is a set of services designed to solve these issues with the way content is organized on a PC. It is designed to optimize for frequent searching. It is designed to offer content producers and/or app vendors a mechanism to add rich, structured metadata on top of the traditional filesystem to offer users a better content-centric experience.

 

[mechBgon]

If there's a database aspect, I'd be thinking SCSI, not ATA RAID0.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: kylef

Originally posted by: bersl2
[Hey, the only tools I really, really need are find and grep. Everything else is a bonus.

I realize this was intended to be somewhat humorous, but in reality, this is part of the problem with the way people use computers today. The traditional search tools are too slow for frequent searching and too coarse to find the specific content a user wants to find.

We avid computer users are generally well-organized. We comprehend the concept of compartmentalizing our data into "files" which belong to groupings called "folders". We even recognize that the best way to "find" files is to never lose them in the first place, and remember where we put them (i.e., a directory structure). So we don't really understand why this is such a big deal.

The whole folder/file metaphore is overplayed anyways. Definately would be nice to have something better.

I like directory structure, I like command line things like grep, find, locate, and such. They are nice things to have for system adminstration.

Moving around a entire OS directory structure, IMO, is much nicer with command line tools then GUI file explorers... However GUI file explorers are much nicer for mucking around with home directories and such.

For instance spatial Nautilus tries as well as it can for creating thumbnails of media files and image files. It's much nicer to open up my 'movie' directory and have a visual representation of what is contained in my video files. And it's much nicer to open up a directory full of jpegs with a image viewer application and get nice picture viewer and navigate up and down my 'image' directory structure with that. All that is much nicer then a CLI setup.

Still though I have to spend 15-20 minutes every couple months to go and clean house with my home directory to keep it usable and straight forward.

Havent' found a GUI file manager that I like for system administration though.. nautilus, konquerer, finder, explorer, whatever.


One interesting application if your running Linux, and I think it may work in Windows too, is a C# application called beagle. It's designed to integrate fairly deep into a Gnome desktop and be your 'desktop search' style application.

Search thru images, music, web, text files, IM logs, etc etc in a fairly cohearent way. Not WinFS, of course, but I think it's fairly indicative of that track of thought. Still beta, of course. Fairly new.

Another interesting new C# program for Linux that is related to this information management sceme is tomboy. It's a note-taking application that is simply made to take notes. Also integrates into the Gnome desktop it has fairly nice editor and the ability to interact with other applications. Take notes for things like Emails, automaticly link to and from websites. Take notes on music playlists and stuff like that.

Still beta, a lot of features are missing. But it should already be usefull for the complusive note takers among us.

So fairly soon I figure the Desktop is going to move beyond just a file/directory motif and go into being a front end for general information managment using integrated tools and applications.

To see how usefull it could be, for a theoretical example, would be something like if your a digital photographer and your camera records 'exim' data into your jpegs you save to your computer. You plug your camera into your computer, a dialog comes up asking you if you want to download the photos to a pre-arranged directory. You click 'yes' and finish that.

Now you want to go thru a find all the photos that you've taken with a certain exposure time, so you open up your search app and instead of looking for file names, you do a search for photos taken in the evening and with a .250 second exposure time or maybe look for evening shots with a 5 second exposure time. Stuff like that.

then you find what you want, and save a search and make a note of it for later. Whatever you want.(then search thru the searches, or email information on the search to somebody, or email the results of the search to someone. Stuff like that.)

Right now you would have to open up the directories in a image viewer with exim support and go thru each and every photograph. Then copy the ones to another directory so that you can have a record of what you've done. Takes time, takes disk space, makes everything more complex for you to remember and manage.

 

[spyordie007]

First of all speculating on the system requirements for an OS that hasn?t hit the beta stage is just that. Speculation.

Microsoft has made clear that when Longhorn finally debuts current hardware will be able to run the OS; however some features (i.e. the DX9 driven GUI) wont have full support unless you have the hardware. Does this mean it will run with 512MB of RAM? I?m sure it will run, it?s more a question of how much RAM the apps you?ll be running 3+ years from now will require than what the OS will need (just as it is today).

WinFS has been summed up pretty well. WinFS will go beta roughly the time that Longhorn is released and is no longer an integral part of the OS. In a nutshell it is a database running on top of the file system that gives you the ability to reference relational data (who, when, etc.) with your NTFS file streams. Does this mean it will take insane amounts of resources? Of course not, there are plenty of applications that stores data on desktop PCs this way right now (just think about all of the applications that come with MSDE). For those of you who are unfamiliar just think about how much resources something like the Google desktop search takes. It?s pretty minimal because it?s dealing with simple data (text). It becomes even more moot when you consider the desktop hardware that will likely be commonplace by the time Longhorn is mainstream; multi-core CPUs, more/faster RAM and faster/larger hard drives will be the norm.

WinFS is not going to be completed on time for Longhorn. However, an earlier version is supposed to appear for WinXP. Maybe at that time I will consider RAID-0.

I haven?t heard about WinFS getting ported to XP, you sure you aren?t confusing it with Avalon (which will be available for XP and 2003 server)?

BTW database applications are far more dependant on seek speed and your RAM cache than they are on total throughput. Therefore RAID-0 wont speed it up by any significant amount.

On to the topic of RAID because there seems to be some confusion over the matter:
I?ve always known the acronym to be Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. Does this mean that it?s always inexpensive disks? No. Does this mean it?s always redundant? Nope again. RAID can be implemented for a number of reasons, among which the most common are redundancy (failure resistance) and speed (but these are not the only reasons)..

Most servers implement RAID5 which is data-integrity AND performance.

No, writes to a RAID-5 array are much slower than to either a RAID-0 or RAID-1 array. Hence the need for big expensive caching RAID controllers with lots of RAM onboard and hardware offload for checksum calculations.

But writes to RAID-5 are still faster than writes to a single drive. Besides the majority of your disk activity is reads, which RAID-5 is very vast at. So you?re both right, it?s for data-integrity as well as speed.

 

[drag]

Microsoft stated a couple times that they are comtemplating backporting WinFS to Windows XP. That they were thinking about it, but they say it will be a few more years before it even gets released for 'Longhorn'.

There are a few other things they are thinking about, like Avalon (like you said) or how many features of IE 7 to keep longhorn-specific and how much of it to backport to Windows XP when that gets released. Since Explorer is so integrated many things that you could do in Longhorn you simply won't be able to do in Windows XP. At least that's my understanding. Probably Microsoft's anti-spyware beta application seems like the first technology 'backport' from stuff that is being developed for Longhorn.

I am mostly going off of this guy's website. Paul Thurrott has a pretty detailed summary of what is known, or at least thought to be known, about the next Windows release and many other microsoft technologies.

Stuff like how Longhorn is going to use a 'new' kernel and will break much backward compatability with very legacy Windows applications that depend on it and MS is probably going to recommend virtual PC program to get full compatability with those things.

For hardware resources they are aiming for any new PC sold during 2005 will be able to run Longhorn, but probably not be able to run it realy well. Probably much like how Windows XP first came out, I am supposing. His projection for minimal/recommended hardware requirements are 3ghz Pentium 4-level proccessor (or 1.8+ ghz mobile cpu, intel pentium-m style) and 512megs of ram.

All in all it's a pretty informative website for Microsoft technology news hounds from what I can tell.

 

[Sunner]

WinFS will be apparently be backported, this article among others has some info.

 

[spyordie007]

Interesting info on the WinFS port, thanks for the link.

Probably Microsoft's anti-spyware beta application seems like the first technology 'backport' from stuff that is being developed for Longhorn.

Actually the anti-spyware beta was released only a month after they bought it from giant software. The current anti-spyware beta release is largly just rebranded.