Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
From: Adrian Bunk
Date: Sat Jun 10 2006 - 11:59:09 EST
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 04:42:28PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I'd argue that whatever we call it, we need a standard, stable,
> > > supported solution *soon* for large files, large filesystems, large
> > > storage systems in Linux.
> > >
> > > I'd think the quickest path is to relieve the pressure now in ext3.
> > Why aren't JFS and XFS good enough for relieving the pressure now?
> Compatibility? Upgradability? Simplicity? Supportability?
> Even ignoring all those arguments, i find your "ext3/ext4 is too
> complex, use XFS or JFS" argument a bit naive. Please take a quick look
> at the linecount of the filesystems in question:
You missed my point (or I didn't make it clear enough):
It's no question that an improved version of ext3 will be available.
The only question is whether it will be ext3 or ext4.
My point was that if it takes a bit longer in the ext4 case, and during
this time some people have this pressure of requiring it, they have the
workaround of using other file systems.
Whether the "improve ext3" or the ext4 approach are better is a
different question. Whether ext3 is better than XFS is also not what I
was talking about.
It's simply that for the few people who need it now, other file systems
are available as a workaround.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
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/