On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:41:10 -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > Jörn> On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Jörn> How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not > evil. ;) > > Nope, they're not. I just think that LogFS isn't descriptive enough, > or more accurately, is the *wrong* description of this filesystem. That was the whole point. JFFS2, the journaling flash filesystem, is a strictly log-structured filesystem. LogFS has a journal. It is also the filesystem that tries to scale logarithmically, as Arnd has noted. Maybe I should call it Log2 to emphesize this point. Log1 would be horrible scalability. > flashfs works for me. It's longer, but hey, that's ok. Even flshfs > might work. Oh wait, flesh? flash? flush? Too confusing... :-) Maybe. FFS or flash filesystem already exists. And YAFFS, yet another flash filesystem, would be older than flashfs. My experience is that no matter which name I pick, people will complain anyway. Previous suggestions included: jffs3 jefs engelfs poofs crapfs sweetfs cutefs dynamic journaling fs - djofs tfsfkal - the file system formerly known as logfs Plus today: FFFS flashfs fredfs bob shizzle Imo they all suck. LogFS also sucks, but it allows me to make a stupid joke and keep my logfs.org domain. Jörn -- There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. -- C. A. R. Hoare - 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
