Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Whither XFS? (was: Congrats Marcelo) | Date | Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:28:55 +0100 |
| |
On February 26, 2002 11:59 pm, Steve Lord wrote: > 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
Are you able to leverage the new EA interface? (Which I still don't like because of the namespace syntax embedded in the attribute names, btw, please don't misinterpret silence as happiness.)
> o The ability to do online filesystem dumps which are coherent with > the system call interface
It would be nice if some other filesystems could share that mechanism, do you think it's feasible? If not, what's the stumbling block? I haven't looked at this for some time and there's was some furious work going on exactly there just before 2.5. It seems we've at least progressed a little from the viewpoint that nobody would want that.
> o delayed allocation of file data
Andrew Morton is working on generic delayed allocation at the vfs level I believe, why not bang heads with him and see if it can be made to work with VFS?
> o DMAPI
It would be nice to have unsucky file events. But there's been roughly zero discussion of dmapi on lkml as far as I can see.
> 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.
True enough.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |