On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:46:04AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: >> That's what I think too but wasn't sure ext2 is still a good choice since it's >> pretty old and it looks like some younger fs seems to make ext2 obsolete. >> Also, it doesn't have a journal. > > This is all true. It depends what your real goal is here. If you want > to learn the fundamentals of what a filesystem has to do to get blocks > from disc and turn them into files, ext2 is perfect for your needs > since it _doesn't_ have a journal or btrees or any of that fancy stuff. > You can learn that later once you have the principles down. > If most of the fs use the same techniques as ext2 to get blocks from disk then indeed ext2 is still a good candidate. > If your goal is to learn how an advanced filesystem works, you might want > to consider looking at JFS which has journals, extents, acls, xattrs and > so on. It's around 4x as big as ext2, but then it's also about 1/3 the > size of XFS (just in terms of wc -l). It's also been properly ported > to Linux, unlike XFS which is still full of IRIXisms. OK. I'll look at JFS if I'm still motivated after looking at ext2. Thanks for the tips. -- Francis -- 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
