Arjan van de Ven writes: > 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") Huh? Direct/indirect/double-indirect/... _is_ a tree, albeit not balanced one. What makes s5fs/ffs/ufs/ext* so exceptionally robust is fixed position of inode tables, which provides a guaranteed starting point for fsck under almost any circumstances. Nikita. - 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
