Re: Reiser4 documentation & specifically current status of repacker, compression, and semantics

[Edward Shishkin <edward@namesys.com>]

Hans Reiser wrote:

>John Gilmore wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Monday 24 October 2005 19:08, Edward Shishkin wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>John Gilmore wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>How are plugin/file
>>>>relationships handled without it?
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>For the first time there will be an option in mkfs to assign a file
>>>plugin for regular files per superblock.
>>>Then (if everything will be okay) we will granulate the relationship.
>>>
>>>Edward.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>So the first beta of compression will only have the option to control it at 
>>mkfs time?
>>
>>    
>>
>It should be explained that on the first flush to disk of a new file the
>default compress plugin will test to see if the first 64k is
>compressable, and if it is not then it converts the file to a regular
>file plugin.
>
>  
>

a little correction:
this is a compression transform plugin that is converted at flush time, 
not file plugin

>Edward, confirm that you coded it that way, as I think I expressed
>things more precisely this time.;-)
>
>I believe most users will find most of their files get the right
>treatment using this heuristic.
>
>  
>
>>And then later on, compression control and status information will 
>>be available on a per-file (or per-directory) basis via a user-space tool 
>>operating on mounted filesystems? Which tool will also be extendable to 
>>control and give status information (where applicable) on other types of 
>>plugins?
>>
>>Is there a page that I could go to - some sort of "Major feature changes" page 
>>- to see what the current status of the filesystem is?
>>
>>    
>>
>If you pay for the tech writer.:-/  We have less funding than most users
>imagine we have.
>
>  
>
>>To answer such 
>>questions as "Is compression ready for beta?" and "what the heck happened to 
>>file-as-directory?" and "I saw mention of a test of the reiser4 repacker, and 
>>also mention of compile problems with repacker.c, which definitely doesn't 
>>exist in MY version of resier4 - what gives?" (though I've concluded that 
>>that last one must be somebodies copy of alpha software...)
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>