From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: HP opensourced advfs from tru64 and what it means for btrfs Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:45:34 +0400 Message-ID: <20080623184532.GA27013@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20080623145026.GA13310@2ka.mipt.ru> <1214245269.10187.587.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jeffschroeder@computer.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Mason Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1214245269.10187.587.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> List-ID: On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 02:21:09PM -0400, Chris Mason (chris.mason@oracle.com) wrote: > > Sure it is interesting as studing anything new, but there is nothing in > > advfs which can prevent btrfs from success. Virtually nothing. > > Advfs is quite old technology built on top of almost 20 years old ideas > > and hardware, while the former can still be (and likely is) valid, > > hardware made significant progress. > > In general, the rules that make filesystems go haven't changed in a long > time. Disks are slow, ram is faster, and cpu is both infinitely fast > and important to share with other things running on the hardware. I believe if things are that simple, you would not start btrfs? :) > There is a great deal we can learn from any long standing FS in terms of > layout optimizations, allocation policies and ease of use. Sure. > Is there code we can lift 100% from advfs? It is hard to say for sure, > but being able to copy policy and basic algorithms is definitely > important. There was similar xfs migration story, and still there is btrfs. I completely agree that there might be some very interesting ideas implemented, but I believe that all them we could already know about, and porting theirs implementation into the new FS will not be easy steps. I fully appreciate advfs became open and belive that it will get some commnunity support, but I think that we are already behind its milestone. -- Evgeniy Polyakov