Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:51 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> PRECISELY.  So you should stop modifying a filesystem whose design is 
> admittedly _not_ modern!
> 
> ext3 is already essentially xiafs-on-life-support, when you consider 
> today's large storage systems and today's filesystem technology.  Just 
> look at the ugly hacks needed to support expanding an ext3 filesystem 
> online.


actually I think I disagree with you. One thing I've noticed over the
years is that ext2 layout has one thing going for it: it is simple and
robust. Maybe "ext2 layout" is the wrong word, "block bitmap and
direct/indirect block based" may be better. It seems that once you go
into tree space (and I would call htree a borderline thing there) you
get both really complex code and fragile behavior all over (mostly in
terms of "when something goes wrong")

-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux