Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:19:41 +0400 | From | Hans Reiser <> | Subject | Re: Linux v2.5.42 |
| |
Dieter Nützel wrote:
>>>>Should EVMS be included, the team will make it our top priority to >>>>resolve the disputed design issues. If the ruling should be that some of >>>>our design decisions must change, so be it, we will comply. Certainly >>>>some changes can not be done by the 20th or 31st, however I feel >>>>the team can handle most changes before 2.6 ships. >>>> >>>> >>>Thats good to hear. Right now the debate appears to be - "users: please >>>add EVMS" "hackers: oh my god no" - so you got the feature set right it >>>seems >>> >>> >>Obvious point: >> >>* Linus can always thaw the tree after 31st just for one addition, if >>something _really_ needs to be added for 2.6 >> >> > >Beside EVMS there is another one: Reiser4 >Getting such an FS "for free" is worth it. >http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html > >Hans, can you please send a summary of the "new" FS limits? >PB/EB, etc.? ;-) > >Regards, > Dieter > > > The new size limits are those of the Linux VFS layer (we use 64 bit numbers most places so that if we port to another architecture, or ia64 becomes viable....). I don't think anyone will find them motivating.
Dramatic performance gains while offering transactional FS operations (wandering logs work, woohoo!), plugins, scalability due to per node locking, obsoleting a whole slew of traditional database tree algorithms for better performance, those are motivating. Wait for Linux Journal to come out, it will have the benchmarks, and you'll see what I mean by dramatic. It will be good enough that we can focus mostly on getting the semantics in place for the competition with OFS.
Hans
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |