[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
On Jun 09, 2006  13:04 -0500, Matthew Frost wrote:
> Alex Tomas wrote:
> >sorry, I disagree. for example, NUMA isn't default and shouldn't be.
> >but we have it in the tree and any one may choose to use it.
> NUMA is designed to cope with a hardware feature, which not everybody
> has. Filesystem upgrades are not qualitatively similar; it does not
> depend on one's hardware design as to whether one uses ext3, let alone
> extents. Your logic is faulty.

If you have a > 8TB block device (which is common in large RAID devices
today, will be a single disk in a couple of years) then it is important
that your filesystem work with this block device.

If ext2 and ext3 didn't support > 2GB files (which was a filesystem
feature added in exactly the same way as extents are today, and nobody
bitched about it then) then they would be relegated to the same status
as minix and xiafs and all the other filesystems that are stuck in the
"we can't change" or "we aren't supported" camps.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.

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: 2006-06-09 20:16    [W:0.217 / U:10.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site