Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:44:10 -0400 | From | rmoser <> | Subject | Re: File System conversion -- ideas |
| |
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 6/29/2003 at 9:37 PM Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:
>> Nrrrg. Yeah, I've got 80 gig and only CDR's to back up to, and no >money. >> A CDR may read for me the day it's written, and then not work the next >> day. Still a risk. > >Say, why you would want to change filesystem type? >
I installed debian and it couldn't boot bk24 (kernel 2.4) at install, so I have like 1 reiserfs partition (created afterwards, because at the time I had 10 gig free) and the rest are ext3. ext3 is VERY slow. I know, it's not THAT slow, but... I have like 5 partitions on each disk, and 2 disks. So, take off swap and reiserfs, like 6 at one time. Painful.
>If you have to change filesystem type, I think it is because you have a >good reason to do it. I can't imagine the reason explaining the need of >converting filesystem if you use this system as home desktop. For >ordinary user filesystem is just used for storing data and managing >permissions to that data. These are not real-time or >performance-critical systems. Thus most of the popular filesystems like >ext2, ext3, reiserfs basically fit their needs. If they choose right >filesystem type at startup, they could use it for a time of life of >their hard disk. >
reiserfs is the filesytem that servers should use. It has the least latency these days ;-) And it's quite stable.
>There are very few situations when you really need to convert >filesystem. Most of the time this operation is done by person who have >some experience with computers, and highly probable by person who has >access to additional hard disks, etc. I have never heard of one who had >to change filesystem type, and had no access to additional equipment. >
Some of us are walking brains with very shallow pockets.
>I don't want to say it is not possible, to provide such a function >safely. What I want to say is that kernel developers should not >complicate filesystem code without *very* good reason. I think that >providing on-the-fly conversion capability is not a good reason. Good >reason is when you can improve usability for many users and most of the >time, not when you ease one operation needed by very few users few times >in their life, especially when they can do what they need by just >transferring their data back and forth to another disk, or machine. >
The filesystem code wouldn't be much more complicated. The changes needed for this would all be in a separate source file anyway. Most of the complicated crap is all in the code for the datasystem that manages the two filesystems that suddenly exist in the same space.
> >Regards, > > >Leonard Milcin Jr. > > >-- >"Unix IS user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are." > -- Tollef Fog Heen > >- >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/
--Bluefox Icy
- 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/
| |