Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion | Date | Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:06:56 -0400 | From | "Horst H. von Brand" <> |
| |
Mike Benoit <ipso@snappymail.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 12:25 +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > > > >and that's the end > > > >of the story for me. There's nothing wrong about focusing on newer code, > > > >but the old code needs to be cared for, too, to fix remaining issues > > > >such as the "can only have N files with the same hash value". > > > > > > Requires a disk format change, in a filesystem without plugins, to fix it. > > You see, I don't care a iota about "plugins" or other implementation details. > > > > The bottom line is reiserfs 3.6 imposes practial limits that ext3fs > > doesn't impose and that's reason enough for an administrator not to > > install reiserfs 3.6. Sorry.
> And EXT3 imposes practical limits that ReiserFS doesn't as well. The big > one being a fixed number of inodes that can't be adjusted on the fly,
Right. Plan ahead.
> which was reason enough for me to not use EXT3 and use ReiserFS > instead.
I don't see this following in any way.
> Do you consider the EXT3 developers to have "abandoned" it because they > haven't fixed this issue? I don't, I just think of it as using the right > tool for the job.
Dangerous parallel, that one...
> I've been bitten by running out of inodes on several occasions,
Me too. It was rather painful each time, but fixable (and in hindsight, dumb user (setup) error).
> and by > switching to ReiserFS it saved one company I worked for over $250,000 > because they didn't need to buy a totally new piece of software.
How can a filesystem (which by basic requirements and design is almost transparent to applications) make such a difference?!
> I haven't been able to use EXT3 on a backup server for the last ~5 years > due to inode limitations.
See comment above. Read mke2fs(8) with care.
> Instead, ReiserFS has been filling that spot > like a champ.
Nice for you.
> The bottom line is that every file system imposes some sort of limits > that bite someone.
Mostly that infinite disks are hard to come by ;-)
> In your case it sounds like EXT3 limits weren't an > issue for you, in my case they were.
I'd suspect the limits you ran into weren't exactly in ext3.
> Thats life. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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/
| |