On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 05/08/2010 01:43 AM, Amir G. wrote: > > As Ted mentioned in his reply, the big concern is that you are forking ext3 > instead of adding a new feature to the end of the ext* family of file > systems. > That is a valid concern, but this is where Next3 stands today. There is no intention of replacing Ext4 with Next4 as the leading ext* f/s. The branch from Ext3 was made at the time to speed up the development process of the snapshot feature. > Since we have multiple snapshot mechanisms in place already (not just btrfs > & lvm, but don't forget all of the builtin array snapshots), I think that we > are not in a hurry to get this done quickly. I would strongly prefer we get > this rebased onto the latest ext4 and resubmitted. > If I were you I would also prefer to get snapshots in ext4, and even snapshots along side extent mapped files, but unfortunately, I cannot promise to deliver either anytime soon. I can only promise my support to anyone who wishes to participate in the merge task. > As far as proof goes, I think that the unfortunate burden of proof is on > your shoulders to prove to us that we should take and maintain those new > features given the often conflicting priorities :-) > What can I say, a Windows file server can display previous file versions without using a costly storage array. Can a RedHat server do that? Can LVM snapshots be used to do that? The CTERA NAS appliances do that using Next3. Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
