Mis-Design of Btrfs?

[Nico Schottelius]

Good morning devs,

I'm wondering whether the raid- and volume-management-builtin of btrfs is
actually a sane idea or not.
Currently we do have md/device-mapper support for raid
already, btrfs lacks raid5 support and re-implements stuff that
has already been done.

I'm aware of the fact that it is very useful to know on which devices
we are in a filesystem. But I'm wondering, whether it wouldn't be
smarter to generalise the information exposure through the VFS layer
instead of replicating functionality:

Physical:   USB-HD   SSD   USB-Flash          | Exposes information to
Raid:       Raid1, Raid5, Raid10, etc.        | higher levels
Crypto:     Luks                              |
LVM:        Groups/Volumes                    |
FS:         xfs/jfs/reiser/ext3               v

Thus a filesystem like ext3 could be aware that it is running
on a USB HD, enable -o sync be default or have the filesystem
to rewrite blocks when running on crypto or optimise for an SSD, ...

Cheers,

Nico

-- 
PGP key: 7ED9 F7D3 6B10 81D7 0EC5  5C09 D7DC C8E4 3187 7DF0
--
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/