Jim Gray - A talk with THE SQL Guru and Architect
- Posted: Mar 20, 2005 at 2:05 AM
- 71,387 Views
- 15 Comments
Download
How do I download the videos?
- To download, right click the file type you would like and pick “Save target as…” or “Save link as…”
Why should I download videos from Channel9?
- It's an easy way to save the videos you like locally.
- You can save the videos in order to watch them offline.
- If all you want is to hear the audio, you can download the MP3!
Which version should I choose?
- If you want to view the video on your PC, Xbox or Media Center, download the High Quality WMV file (this is the highest quality version we have available).
- If you'd like a lower bitrate version, to reduce the download time or cost, then choose the Medium Quality WMV file.
- If you have a Zune, WP7, iPhone, iPad, or iPod device, choose the low or medium MP4 file.
- If you just want to hear the audio of the video, choose the MP3 file.
Right click “Save as…”
- Mid Quality WMV (Lo-band, Mobile)
- WMV (WMV Video)
Jim Gray is a distinguished engineer in Microsoft's Scalable Servers Research Group and manager of our Bay Area Research Center.
That doesn't even start to do justice to the role Jim has played in the development of databases.
You might know him as the guy behind Terra Service or Sky Server.
We sat down with Jim for a couple of hours. Here's the first part.
We talk about everything about new database architectures to new trends in computing to his role in Terra Service.
That doesn't even start to do justice to the role Jim has played in the development of databases.
You might know him as the guy behind Terra Service or Sky Server.
We sat down with Jim for a couple of hours. Here's the first part.
We talk about everything about new database architectures to new trends in computing to his role in Terra Service.
Comments Closed
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation,
please create a new thread in our Forums,
or
Contact Us and let us know.
Follow the Discussion
Anyways - i agree Mark..definitely worth the 50min download!
When's Part 2 coming?
Coming Monday.
Yeah, it was a big honor to be able to spend a few hours with Jim Gray and Gordon Bell and the other folks in the Bay Area Research Center.
I like what he said about conventional OS design being a very narrow, limited field compared to what it could be. I've been saying to people for some time how depressing it is that all this effort goes into writing OSs that are all more or less the same as unix. I claim that virtually every mainstream OS since unix has been unduly influenced by it. People look at me like I'm mad, like Windows is nothing like unix they say. But the concepts are very similar. All OSs seem to have a similar concept of processes, of file streams; filesystems are nearly all hierarchical. Files are uniformly byte-adressable flat files from an OS perspective. Even if you go back to msdos you can see the influence of unix. Version 1 was more or less like CP/M in that the filesystem didn't have directories and files were accessed using what was called FCBs (File Control Blocks). Version 2 arrives and FCBs are still supported, but now you have a unix-style streams interface and a hierarchical filesystem.
Most of the credit for this goes down to the pre-eminence of not only the C language but more importantly the C library that defined the API. Later developments like the Berkley implementation of TCP/IP played a similar role in ensuring that almost all network programming is the same.
But yes, with a few notable exceptions like PICK and OS/400 it seems that the concept of an operating system for most people was set in stone by unix. Also the concept of the database seems to have been set in stone when Oracle version 1 shipped.
And that's just a comment on one of the first things Jim mentions. Then there's a heck of a lot of interesting things about science so much so that I almost forgot what I was going to comment on by the time I got to the end of the video!
Any chance you could tell me what else you have coming up on the same topic/genre?
V.interesting stuff...might even be able to base an entire session on it...very informative!
make me want more!! is that sad?
Yes it is...... but you're among other sad people
I could spend days, leaving customers without support, watching this stuff :>
i think i'll have to watch it once more to really get everything out of it.
i've noticed some snips to the video reel in a couple of these videos, some of them i can tell are just for asthetical and time-conservation purposes, but some of them seem like audits...?
A fascinating listen though. I definately downloaded it just to watch it again...
RE: PR - Yes. Our stuff is PR-reviewed, but, as you can tell, they seldom make us cut things out, which is really impressive...
C
I agree with your assessment re operating systems. Most operating systems are similar because they are tasked at the most fundamental level to do the same basic things: make it possible for software to exploit hardware. As Jim most concisely mentioned an operating system is really just a virtualizer. Now, this doesn't mean that an OS can't be built with massive parallelism and distribution in mind as well as the ability to take better care of itself (read homeostatic). Maybe we should encourage Jim to think seriously about targeting his creativity and intellect on the future of operating systems in the connected world.
Charles
100% Charles! If you think about it, WinFS is the start of the DB being directly integrated in the "OS". If you think about the new features in SQL 2005, you could also start thinking on how to apply some of those features into the OS. For example. Say everything (not all) is now a job put into a queue (i.e. mainframe style). Even common things like file copy and print jobs. Each Windows OS will have a Service Brocker (like SQL 2005). So file copy jobs and print jobs will be sent to the OS's Service Brocker Queue first instead handled directly. Then it can better handle things like priority and resource usage with rules on the Queue and have commit and rollback symantics. Think about things like tranfering files, xml documents, print jobs, etc between partners. Just queue up a bunch of stuff and pool a reply queue or get some event notification. Kinda like msmq, but directly integrated into the OS, reliable, available, and abstracted with the OS apis and GUIs. Maybe email of the future would be xml documents handled by Service Broker queues between OSes with no SMTP. Inbox would then just pull from respective queue, same with outbox. Lots of cool things to think about.
Now that I think about it more, we just solved all or most the worlds distributed issues. No more network issues such as web services, sockets, or WSE for developers to deal with. All are gone at this level. Just need a DNS name, a Queue Endpoint Name, and your XML document (or other). Send it to the queue and wait for reply via various means. You get the reply or some error message. Works with files, documents, binary, etc. You query the SO contracts the same way (e.g. wsdl). The OS service broker handles the rest under the covers (i.e. federated security, network, protocols, etc.) Boy that was easy. Next!
Remove this comment
Remove this thread
close