On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > [...]
> > It seems that Stephen started out with the goal of making a generic, easy
> > to use layer for any FS, with the best interests of the linux kernel in
> > mind. I wrote something just for us, because I wanted a challenge. Look
> > through the ext3 code and the reiserfs journal.c, and it will be clear
> > Stephen knew what he was doing from the start, and I learned as I went
> > along.
> > In other words, quit saying that I did a better job than ext3. We had
> > different goals, and it will be a long time I before understand things as
> > well as Stephen does.
> You did a better job, just look at the benchmarks.
> Yura Rupasov, please send us a complete set of fresh benchmarks of ext3 vs.
> reiserfs if you aren't doing anything more urgent.
Hans, you do realize that you are trying to compare the journal layer of
two different filesystems. Where one filesystem is known to have very
different performance than the other. It is more than a little unfair,
and not a very good use of anyone's time.
Your obsession with benchmarks has been a very good thing for reiserfs ;-)
but is not at all related to this dicussion. Alan says he wants a journal
layer for all filesystems to use. A performance comparison between
reiserfs and ext3 is not a part of that issue.
The generic journal layer might not be a bad idea. Stephen and I have
really duplicated efforts, and that is a waste. I'm more than willing to
make a go at integrating a generic logging system into the reiserfs code
But, reiserfs 3.6 has come a long way. I feel it is worth putting into
the kernel soon (I would love to see reports of *heavy* testing), and I
don't feel the lack of a completed generic journal layer is a good enough
reason to keep it out.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:23 EST