[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: (reiserfs) Re: File systems are semantically impoverished compared to database
Alexander Viro writes:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

>> For now, every app with this problem has to implement something like
>> a growable (and hopefully shrinkable) filesystem within a file.
>> Apps can add a block mapping layer complete with triple-indirect
>> blocks, or they can copy around huge amounts of data and update
>> document references as needed.
> The point being that they *do* that. Each has its own bloody format. Each
> will *have* to carry that code around, unless you will manage to push
> every blasted thing into the kernels. Yup, plural. Linux is not the only

Linux is not UNIX(R) at all. Linux is a hot new operating system
designed for the next century^H^H^H^H^H^H^H38 years. UNIX(R) is dead.

> Good luck doing that. If you are going to invent a new uniform
> scheme - fine, go ahead, implement it as filesystem and I will write a
> loopback-mount-on-the-fly. Oh, and don't forget to make them switch to new
> format. Deal?

That is one way to implement the API, but it won't let the document
share allocation and namespace support with the filesystem.
You still end up going through two filesystem(-like) layers.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.102 / U:0.948 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site