Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

[JÃrn Engel]

On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:41:10 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> JÃÂrn> On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 
> JÃÂrn> How many of you have worked for IBM before?  Vowels are not
> evil. ;)
> 
> Nope, they're not.  I just think that LogFS isn't descriptive enough,
> or more accurately, is the *wrong* description of this filesystem.  

That was the whole point.  JFFS2, the journaling flash filesystem, is a
strictly log-structured filesystem.  LogFS has a journal.

It is also the filesystem that tries to scale logarithmically, as Arnd
has noted.  Maybe I should call it Log2 to emphesize this point.  Log1
would be horrible scalability.

> flashfs works for me.  It's longer, but hey, that's ok.  Even flshfs
> might work.  Oh wait, flesh?  flash?  flush?  Too confusing... :-)   

Maybe.  FFS or flash filesystem already exists.  And YAFFS, yet another
flash filesystem, would be older than flashfs.

My experience is that no matter which name I pick, people will complain
anyway.  Previous suggestions included:
jffs3
jefs
engelfs
poofs
crapfs
sweetfs
cutefs
dynamic journaling fs - djofs
tfsfkal - the file system formerly known as logfs

Plus today:
FFFS
flashfs
fredfs
bob
shizzle

Imo they all suck.  LogFS also sucks, but it allows me to make a stupid
joke and keep my logfs.org domain.

JÃrn

-- 
There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other is
to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C. A. R. Hoare
-
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/