From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030261AbWFJDuP (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 23:50:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030256AbWFJDuP (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 23:50:15 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:40906 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030225AbWFJDuN (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 23:50:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:49:51 +1000 From: Nathan Scott To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Message-ID: <20060610134951.B775761@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060609091327.GA3679@infradead.org> <20060609030759.48cd17a0.akpm@osdl.org> <44899653.1020007@garzik.org> <20060609095620.22326f9d.akpm@osdl.org> <4489AAD9.80806@garzik.org> <20060609103543.52c00c62.akpm@osdl.org> <20060609214200.GA18213@kevlar.burdell.org> <20060609151553.30097b44.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20060609151553.30097b44.akpm@osdl.org>; from akpm@osdl.org on Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:15:53PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Sonny Rao wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:35:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > All that being said, Linux's filesystems are looking increasingly crufty > > > and we are getting to the time where we would benefit from a greenfield > > > start-a-new-one. > > > > I'm curious about this comment; in what way are they _collectively_ > > looking crufty ? > > We seem to be lagging behind "the industry" in some areas - handling large > devices, high bandwidth IO, sophisticated on-disk data structures, advanced > manageability, etc. Er, no. I'm not aware of many filesystems that are in the same league as XFS on those first three specific points. It certainly has "ondisk sophistication" very well covered, trust me. ;) We are definately not lagging on handling large devices nor high bandwidth I/O anyway - XFS serves up very close to the hardware capabilities for high end hardware and it scales well. One could come up with a different list of areas where Linux filesystems might be lagging, but that list above ain't right. > I mean, although ZFS is a rampant layering violation and we can do a lot of > the things in there (without doing it all in the fs!) I don't think we can > do all of it. *nod*. cheers. -- Nathan