[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Congrats Marcelo,
On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 16:59, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Someone has got to kill this assumption people have about XFS, it
> > makes much smaller changes than some things which have gone in,
> > the odd VM rewrite here and there to name some. Given that we now
> Which was a complete disaster. IBM submitted Jfs into the -ac tree with
> no lines of code changed outside fs/jfs. That is really the benchmark.

Alan, I agree the VM changes had their issues, bad example, but LOTs of
things have gone into 2.4 which are more impactive than XFS, I just want
to get out of this image of XFS being the filesystem which ate the

Yes jfs went in cleanly, because they reimplemented their filesystem
from the ground up, and had a large budget to do it. XFS does not fit
so cleanly because we brought along some features other filesystems did
not have:

o Posix ACL support
o The ability to do online filesystem dumps which are coherent with
the system call interface
o delayed allocation of file data

As it is we did all of these, and we seem to have half the Linux NAS
vendors in the world building xfs into their boxes.



Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean