lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectWhither XFS? (was: Congrats Marcelo)
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.080 / U:7.924 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site