Re: what is our answer to ZFS?

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:25:20PM +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > The standards are insufficient however.  For example dealing with named 
> > > streams or extended attributes if exposed as "normal files" would 
> > > naturally have the same st_ino (given they are the same inode as the 
> > > normal file data) and st_dev fields.
> > 
> > Um, but that's why even Solaris's openat(2) proposal doesn't expose
> > streams or extended attributes as "normal files".  The answer is that
> > you can't just expose named streams or extended attributes as "normal
> > files" without screwing yourself.
> 
> Reiser4 does I believe...

Reiser4 violates POSIX.  News at 11....

> I was not talking about Solaris/UFS.  NTFS has named streams and extended 
> attributes and both are stored as separate attribute records inside the 
> same inode as the data attribute.  (A bit simplified as multiple inodes 
> can be in use for one "file" when an inode's attributes become large than 
> an inode - in that case attributes are either moved whole to a new inode 
> and/or are chopped up in bits and each bit goes to a different inode.)

NTFS violates POSIX.  News at 11....

							- Ted
-
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/