On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Sonny Rao <sonny@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:35:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > <snip> > > > All that being said, Linux's filesystems are looking increasingly crufty > > > and we are getting to the time where we would benefit from a greenfield > > > start-a-new-one. > > > > I'm curious about this comment; in what way are they _collectively_ > > looking crufty ? > > We seem to be lagging behind "the industry" in some areas - handling large > devices, high bandwidth IO, sophisticated on-disk data structures, advanced > manageability, etc. Er, no. I'm not aware of many filesystems that are in the same league as XFS on those first three specific points. It certainly has "ondisk sophistication" very well covered, trust me. ;) We are definately not lagging on handling large devices nor high bandwidth I/O anyway - XFS serves up very close to the hardware capabilities for high end hardware and it scales well. One could come up with a different list of areas where Linux filesystems might be lagging, but that list above ain't right. > I mean, although ZFS is a rampant layering violation and we can do a lot of > the things in there (without doing it all in the fs!) I don't think we can > do all of it. *nod*. cheers. -- Nathan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
