On Sat, 22 May 1999, Jeff Merkey wrote:
> much of it they are really going to give you.  Another Unix File system
> (yawn yawn yawn) with journalling (which means it will be **SLOW**).  I
> would vote for the ext3 project to continue.  It appears they were reacting
> to us.  Here's a trace of their accesses to our website (obtained via
[paranoia deleted]

You should be aware that the whole development model of Linux (and
open-source programs in general) is that someone gets pissed at the bad
availability or implementation of something, and goes ahead and writes
something better. In light of that, why would anyone ever think ext3 (or
whatever is in the works from other sides of the world) would be
discontinued just because SGI contributes something ? Would all filesystem
development in the world stop if MS contributed a R/W NTFS implementation
?

In any case, if they do contribute XFS under a suitable license, I'm sure
there's a lot of interesting bits to learn from it. It's made for
_extremely_ large systems, with hundreds of GB online, millions of files
and very large single file extents. Dynamical i-node management, extents,
B+trees for everything, and fine-grained locking to scale with systems up
to like 256 CPU's. One would be an idiot NOT to use that for something.

/Bjorn



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/