[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
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 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.

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


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 20:54    [W:0.191 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site