On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:39:48PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Most of my customers remark that Namesys code is head and shoulders
> above the rest of the kernel code. So yes, it is different. In
> particular, they cite the XFS code as being so incredibly hard to read
> that its unreadability is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in
> license fees for me. That's cash received, from persons who read it
> all, not commentary made idly.
>
> May I suggest that you work on the XFS code instead? Surely with all of
> this energy you have, you could improve XFS a lot before it gets
> accepted into the kernel.
>
> As for the indirections, if you figure out how to make VFS indirections
> easy to follow, the same technique should be applicable to Reiser4, and
> I will be happy to fix it.
>
> (Note for the record: I actually think XFS acceptance was delayed too
> long, and I think that XFS is a great filesystem, but a rhetorical point
> needed to be made......)
Well my experience with XFS for about 6 months using 2.6 kernels has
been about as good as my experience with reiserfs 3.6 back when 2.4
was fairly new.
That's why I run ext3.
I don't need my filesystem locking up, leaking memory all over the
place, causing processes to be killed byt the out of memory handler,
etc. I will stick with what works all the time.
Performance and nifty features are fun, but only when they don't break
your system.
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |