Talk:Object storage

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

The content of Object-based_storage_device was merged into Object storage on 8 November 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

"Object storage was first proposed at Carnegie Mellon University's Parallel Data Lab "

Baloney. Object stores were a universal part of the earliest object oriented environments. It was one of the reasons it was so difficult to use early versions of things like Smalltalk for general programming, because the system lived within its object store, and that was normally a gigantic monolithic snapshot file within the underlying OS's file system. Later there were generalized versions, like Apple's Bento (no, not Bento (database)) and similar concepts.

The description here is not of object storage, but object file systems, which are similar but different. The article either needs to clearly state that, perhaps with a renaming, or alternately expand the description/history to illustrate the development of these concepts. I'm open to suggestions as to which of these seems more appropriate.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are way too many duplicate vendor company links in here. So much so it seems promotional... A. Ward (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

What does "Captive" object storage mean, and are there any references to the term? Isn't Facebook's Haystack rather just a proprietary object store? --Raidex.sym (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Response: Maybe merge this with "cloud" storage. "Captive object storage" certainly isn't a standard or defined term, AFAIK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7CF3:FA00:A83D:9EB4:2852:98B0 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Titan supercomputer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Object storage at the protocol and device layer was proposed 20 years ago[ambiguous] and approved for the SCSI command set nearly 10 years ago[ambiguous]"

This line was added on 03. Nov 2013, so while "nearly 10 years ago" most likely refers to the source's mention of July 2004 ratification, it is unclear what proposal is meant by "proposed 20 years ago", as 20 years before 2013 would put it before the 1995 research by Garth Gibson, does anyone have an idea where this comes from?

2A06:93C2:9F:1:25B:C457:A364:BD83 (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "Differences between key-value and object stores" section makes generalizations that are incorrect. Fit example, many key value stores are eventually consistent. 213.55.243.19 (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that Binary Large Object deserves its own entry, since this is a datatype in SQL databases, and should be described separately from object storage. At least there should be a separate section for that, but I believe restoring the original separate page would be better. RayGates (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This statement is significantly dated, has no attribution, and cites a report that no longer exists:

"In 2019, IDC rated Dell EMC, Hitachi Data Systems, IBM, NetApp, and Scality as leaders."

It should not appear on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftoor (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply