Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

[Jeff Garzik]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/