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


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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  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