Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

PiFS and CryFS


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 10447 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 02 March 2016 - 04:23 PM

Interesting stuff, store all your data as a Pi value: https://github.com/philipl/pifs

πfs is a revolutionary new file system that, instead of wasting space storing your data on your hard drive, stores your data in π! You'll never run out of space again - π holds every file that could possibly exist! They said 100% compression was impossible? You're looking at it!

 

The second is German-based encryption for anything you place on dropbox: https://www.cryfs.org/

CryFS encrypts your files, so you can safely store them anywhere. It works well together with cloud services like Dropbox, iCloud, OneDrive and others.

 

Both of them freeware & open source.

 

:cheers:



#2 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 02 March 2016 - 04:55 PM

Interesting stuff, store all your data as a Pi value: https://github.com/philipl/pifs

Cannot say about the second, but the first is bull§hit (or wishful - wrong - thinking), I am surprised you didn't notice it.

 

In this implementation, to maximise performance, we consider each individual byte of the file separately, and look it up in π.

So I've looked up my bytes in π, but how do I remember where they are?

Well, you've obviously got to write them down somewhere; you could use a piece of paper, but remember all that storage space we saved by moving our data into π? Why don't we store our file locations there!?! Even better, the location of our files in π is metadata and as we all know metadata is becoming more and more important in everything we do. Doesn't it feel great to have generated so much metadata? Why waste time with old fashioned data when you can just deal with metadata, and lots of it!
Yeah, but what happens if lose my file locations?

No problem, the locations are just metadata! Your files are still there, sitting in π - they're never going away, are they?
Why is this thing so slow? It took me five minutes to store a 400 line text file!

Well, this is just an initial prototype, and don't worry, there's always Moore's law!
Where do we go from here?

There's lots of potential for the future!
Variable run length search and lookup!
Arithmetic Coding!
Parallelizable lookup!
Cloud based π lookup!
πfs for Hadoop!

:duff:

Wonko



#3 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 10447 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 02 March 2016 - 05:08 PM

CryFS is a real project, with a solid research behind. Even today was talking with its author and this is a tool we will (might) see used more often in upcoming years.

 

In regards to PiFS I am curious about the concept. Wouldn't say that a single byte would be effective, but how about coordinates to combinations of 256 bytes? Do you think it is doable?



#4 v77

v77

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 521 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 02 March 2016 - 06:09 PM

Of course, the whole project of PiFS is ironic. But I too find the concept interesting.
  • Nuno Brito likes this

#5 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13636 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 02 March 2016 - 06:25 PM

CryFS is a real project, with a solid research behind. Even today was talking with its author and this is a tool we will (might) see used more often in upcoming years.

As said I don't doubt it in the least, and this is the reason why I highlighted as unfair/inappropriate to "mix it" with the crap PiFS.

In regards to PiFS I am curious about the concept. Wouldn't say that a single byte would be effective, but how about coordinates to combinations of 256 bytes? Do you think it is doable?

As long as you can find in the expansion of Pi every possible combination of 256^256 which is more or less 3,231700607131100730071487668867e+616 it will work nicely.

The sheer moment in which you will need 256 bytes to hold the coordinates to the address of the 256 bytes sequence it will become again m00t.

More generally, every indexing system (not only a computer based one) must have a ratio MUCH HIGHER than 1:1 between size of index record and size of data retrievable at the location addressed in the index.

A typical example might be a (once) common public library index, for each book, composed of tens or hundred of pages and thousands of sentences there is a single card.
Each card has title, Author, room/shelf/location, plus a few more pieces of info, however all of them fit into a single card.
The system works nicely.
A (mad) librarian decides to store at home his collection of birthday cards :w00t: using the same method he uses at work, and compiles an index card for each birthday card he has, the system is not anymore efficient.

:duff:
Wonko
  • Nuno Brito likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users