On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 16:59, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Someone has got to kill this assumption people have about XFS, it
> > makes much smaller changes than some things which have gone in,
> > the odd VM rewrite here and there to name some. Given that we now
>
> Which was a complete disaster. IBM submitted Jfs into the -ac tree with
> no lines of code changed outside fs/jfs. That is really the benchmark.
Alan, I agree the VM changes had their issues, bad example, but LOTs of
things have gone into 2.4 which are more impactive than XFS, I just want
to get out of this image of XFS being the filesystem which ate the
kernel.
Yes jfs went in cleanly, because they reimplemented their filesystem
from the ground up, and had a large budget to do it. XFS does not fit
so cleanly because we brought along some features other filesystems did
not have:
o Posix ACL support
o The ability to do online filesystem dumps which are coherent with
the system call interface
o delayed allocation of file data
o DMAPI
As it is we did all of these, and we seem to have half the Linux NAS
vendors in the world building xfs into their boxes.
Steve
--Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@sgi.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 21:00:34 EST