From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751468AbWFISOV (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:14:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751463AbWFISOV (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:14:21 -0400 Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:12960 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751446AbWFISOU (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:14:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:14:26 -0600 From: Andreas Dilger To: Matthew Frost Cc: Alex Tomas , Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Message-ID: <20060609181426.GC5964@schatzie.adilger.int> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Frost , Alex Tomas , Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> <20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org> <448997FA.50109@garzik.org> <44899A1C.7000207@garzik.org> <4489B83E.9090104@sbcglobal.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4489B83E.9090104@sbcglobal.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Jun 09, 2006 13:04 -0500, Matthew Frost wrote: > Alex Tomas wrote: > >sorry, I disagree. for example, NUMA isn't default and shouldn't be. > >but we have it in the tree and any one may choose to use it. > > NUMA is designed to cope with a hardware feature, which not everybody > has. Filesystem upgrades are not qualitatively similar; it does not > depend on one's hardware design as to whether one uses ext3, let alone > extents. Your logic is faulty. If you have a > 8TB block device (which is common in large RAID devices today, will be a single disk in a couple of years) then it is important that your filesystem work with this block device. If ext2 and ext3 didn't support > 2GB files (which was a filesystem feature added in exactly the same way as extents are today, and nobody bitched about it then) then they would be relegated to the same status as minix and xiafs and all the other filesystems that are stuck in the "we can't change" or "we aren't supported" camps. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.