Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by regarding reiser4 inclusion

From: Christian Iversen
Date: Mon Jul 24 2006 - 07:36:10 EST

On Monday 24 July 2006 12:25, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > >and that's the end
> > >of the story for me. There's nothing wrong about focusing on newer code,
> > >but the old code needs to be cared for, too, to fix remaining issues
> > >such as the "can only have N files with the same hash value".
> >
> > Requires a disk format change, in a filesystem without plugins, to fix
> > it.
> You see, I don't care a iota about "plugins" or other implementation
> details.
> The bottom line is reiserfs 3.6 imposes practial limits that ext3fs
> doesn't impose and that's reason enough for an administrator not to
> install reiserfs 3.6. Sorry.

And what do you do if you, say, run of of inodes on ext3? Do you think the
users will care about that? Or what if the number of files in your mail queue
or proxy cache* become large enough for your fs operations to slow to a

* Yes I know most programs work around this by using many subdirs, but that's
really a bandaid solution.

Christian Iversen
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at