Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:51:55 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [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 online.
Jeff
- 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/
| |