> Frankly, I'd like to see ext2/ext3 do *any* of these things now or in
> the immediate future. There are a number of incompatible ext2 versions
> in the works for adding B-trees, ACL storage, etc. to ext2, but
Sorry to ruin a good debate with facts
- Ext2 acls are back compatible
- Ext2 from introduction to now is back compatible read/write in the
original form
- Ext2 changes (big block sizes, sparse superblock) are only back
compatible so far
In fact they ext2 folks went to great pains to plan this. You do them a
disservice by not actually doing one iota of reading before wading in
> factor aside (i.e. the up-and-coming flame war between the developers
> of ReiserFS and ext2/ext3) and just focus on preparing the best
I've not seen a single flame from an ext2/ext3 developer. Odd that isnt it.
You seem to be missing the big points
1. We are in the 2.4 code freeze
2. We need to merge together the journalling code to get a single good
journalling layer for all if possible and as far as possible to avoid
a support nightmare
3. I don't actually give a hoot about relative merits of the file systems
here.
NWFS is the only Netware file system
Ext3 is the only journalling fs that can be trivially used to switch
to/from an ext2 fs
Reiserfs is very oriented to things like lots of small files
XFS is designed to handle very large scalable SMP file systems
IBM JFS is the only one that can read OS/2 or AIX JFS
So I can make a case for all five of these systems being useful in
a kernel.
We aren't having a God's chosen file system debate.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:22 EST