On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 20:30 +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote: > 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. ok sure; the main strength is that it is not a dynamic tree. - 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
