Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:14:58 -0400 (EDT) | From | <> | Subject | Re: (reiserfs) Re: LVM / Filesystems / High availability |
| |
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Stephen C. Tweedie writes: > > On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 03:15:30 -0400 (EDT), "Albert D. Cahalan" > > <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> said: > > >> Explain how to do real-time IO bandwidth reservations with a > >> filesystem that is unaware of the underlying structure. > > > > If you want to start that game, explain where you got the idea that > > Linux's filesystems and IO subsystems were _ever_ designed to be able to > > make guarantees about IO bandwidth at all! > > I didn't get that idea, since Linux is not designed for that. > Linux was not designed to be portable, was not designed for SMP, > was not designed to real-time scheduling, and was not expected > to ever support SCSI.
It's lack of initial SCSI support is obvious. The way we name scsi devices (/dev/sda /dev/sdb ...) is a complete joke! At least Linux's other 'new' features are better written.
> My concern is that implementation choices made now will mean that > future hackers will have to rip up more code than they might > otherwise need to. (not that it would be easy in any case) > > Anyway, how else would it be done? You said that the "simple" > solution (dumb filesystem on top of generic LVM) wasn't going > to work so well, didn't you? Have you changed your mind? > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |