lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Ext4 and the "30 second window of death"
    On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:38:06PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:

    > What's been frustrating about this whole controversy is this implicit
    > assumptions that users and applications should never change, and the
    > filesystem should magically accomodate and Do The Right Thing.

    This is the attitude that I have a significant problem with. Filesystems
    exist to serve applications. Without applications, there's no reason to
    have a filesystem. If a filesystem doesn't provide the behaviour that
    applications want then that filesystem has no reason to exist. The aim
    isn't to produce a platonically ideal filesystem. The aim is to produce
    a filesystem that behaves well given the applications that use it.

    Disagreeing with the behaviour of applications is a perfectly sensible
    thing to do. However, it's something that should be done at the *start*
    of a filesystem development cycle. Getting agreement from a broad
    section of application developers means that you get to write a
    filesystem that embodies a different set of assumptions and everyone
    wins. Writing a filesystem and then bitching about application behaviour
    after it's been merged to mainline is just pathological.

    > The problem is, this is what the application programmers are telling
    > the filesystem developers. They refuse to change their programs; and
    > the features they want are sometimes mutually contradictory, or at
    > least result in a overconstrained problem --- and then they throw the
    > whole mess at the filesystem developers' feet and say, "you fix it!"

    Which application developers did you speak to? Because, frankly, the
    majority of the ones I know felt that ext3 embodied the pony that they'd
    always dreamed of as a five year old. Stephen gave them that pony almost
    a decade ago and now you're trying to take it to the glue factory. I
    remember almost crying at that bit on Animal Farm, so I'm really not
    surprised that you're getting pushback here.

    > I'm not saying the filesystems are blameless, but give us a little
    > slack, guys; we NEED some help from the application developers here.

    Then having a discussion with application developers over the
    expectations they can have would be a good first step. Just pointing at
    POSIX isn't good enough - POSIX allows a bunch of behaviours
    sufficiently pathological that a filesystem implementing them would be
    less useful than /dev/null. We need to have a worthwhile conversation
    about what guarantees Linux will provide above and beyond POSIX. The
    filesystem summit next week isn't going to be that conversation. Perhaps
    something to try at Plumbers?

    --
    Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-03 02:03    [W:0.022 / U:0.684 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site