[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
    Arjan van de Ven writes:
    > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:51 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > > PRECISELY. So you should stop modifying a filesystem whose design is
    > > admittedly _not_ modern!
    > >
    > > ext3 is already essentially xiafs-on-life-support, when you consider
    > > today's large storage systems and today's filesystem technology. Just
    > > look at the ugly hacks needed to support expanding an ext3 filesystem
    > > online.
    > actually I think I disagree with you. One thing I've noticed over the
    > years is that ext2 layout has one thing going for it: it is simple and
    > robust. Maybe "ext2 layout" is the wrong word, "block bitmap and
    > direct/indirect block based" may be better. It seems that once you go
    > into tree space (and I would call htree a borderline thing there) you
    > get both really complex code and fragile behavior all over (mostly in
    > terms of "when something goes wrong")

    Huh? Direct/indirect/double-indirect/... _is_ a tree, albeit not
    balanced one. What makes s5fs/ffs/ufs/ext* so exceptionally robust is
    fixed position of inode tables, which provides a guaranteed starting
    point for fsck under almost any circumstances.

    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: 2006-06-11 18:39    [W:0.020 / U:20.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site