From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Linux v2.5.42 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:19:41 +0400 Message-ID: <3DA89FFD.6010803@namesys.com> References: <200210122220.29381.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Dieter_N=FCtzel?= Cc: Linux Kernel List , ReiserFS List Dieter N=FCtzel wrote: >>>>Should EVMS be included, the team will make it our top priority to >>>>resolve the disputed design issues. If the ruling should be that some of >>>>our design decisions must change, so be it, we will comply. Certainly >>>>some changes can not be done by the 20th or 31st, however I feel >>>>the team can handle most changes before 2.6 ships. >>>> =20 >>>> >>>Thats good to hear. Right now the debate appears to be - "users: please >>>add EVMS" "hackers: oh my god no" - so you got the feature set right it >>>seems >>> =20 >>> >>Obvious point: >> >>* Linus can always thaw the tree after 31st just for one addition, if >>something _really_ needs to be added for 2.6 >> =20 >> > >Beside EVMS there is another one: Reiser4 >Getting such an FS "for free" is worth it. >http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html > >Hans, can you please send a summary of the "new" FS limits? >PB/EB, etc.? ;-) > >Regards, > Dieter > > =20 > The new size limits are those of the Linux VFS layer (we use 64 bit=20 numbers most places so that if we port to another architecture, or ia64=20 becomes viable....). I don't think anyone will find them motivating. =20 Dramatic performance gains while offering transactional FS operations=20 (wandering logs work, woohoo!), plugins, scalability due to per node=20 locking, obsoleting a whole slew of traditional database tree algorithms=20 for better performance, those are motivating. Wait for Linux Journal to=20 come out, it will have the benchmarks, and you'll see what I mean by=20 dramatic. It will be good enough that we can focus mostly on getting=20 the semantics in place for the competition with OFS. Hans