On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 07:01 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 11:54:58AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > So rather than deprecating the functionality, perhaps we should look > > at implementing it through a simpler, more generic, better > > integrated interface? That will increase the usefulness of the > > functionality for a much wider audience than it has now, and also > > provide the virt/blk throttling folk with exactly the "don't cross > > the streams" functionality they suggest filesystems are unable to > > support easily..... > > That does indeed sound simpler, and also more useful. Do the users > who have chimed in here (and off list) think such a scheme would be > useful for them? We have customers that make good use of filestreams. I don't think it matters whether they use CXFS or XFS, it's a very useful allocation strategy, and an important feature for certain applications. I like the idea of generalizing it and/or improving its interface though. -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
