[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:0.023 / U:2.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site