Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 20:30 +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven writes:
>  > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:51 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>  > > PRECISELY.  So you should stop modifying a filesystem whose design is 
>  > > admittedly _not_ modern!
>  > > 
>  > > ext3 is already essentially xiafs-on-life-support, when you consider 
>  > > today's large storage systems and today's filesystem technology.  Just 
>  > > look at the ugly hacks needed to support expanding an ext3 filesystem 
>  > > online.
>  > 
>  > 
>  > actually I think I disagree with you. One thing I've noticed over the
>  > years is that ext2 layout has one thing going for it: it is simple and
>  > robust. Maybe "ext2 layout" is the wrong word, "block bitmap and
>  > direct/indirect block based" may be better. It seems that once you go
>  > into tree space (and I would call htree a borderline thing there) you
>  > get both really complex code and fragile behavior all over (mostly in
>  > terms of "when something goes wrong")
> 
> Huh? Direct/indirect/double-indirect/... _is_ a tree, albeit not
> balanced one.

ok sure; the main strength is that it is not a dynamic tree.


-
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]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux