From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:06:05 +0000 Message-ID: <20060612220605.GD4950@ucw.cz> References: <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org> <448997FA.50109@garzik.org> <44899A1C.7000207@garzik.org> <4489B83E.9090104@sbcglobal.net> <20060609181426.GC5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <4489C34B.1080806@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matthew Frost , Alex Tomas , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:2065 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750728AbWFMMrv (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:47:51 -0400 To: Jeff Garzik Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4489C34B.1080806@garzik.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi! > >If ext2 and ext3 didn't support > 2GB files (which was > >a filesystem > >feature added in exactly the same way as extents are > >today, and nobody > >bitched about it then) then they would be relegated to > >the same status > >as minix and xiafs and all the other filesystems that > >are stuck in the > >"we can't change" or "we aren't supported" camps. > > 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. Please don't. AFAIK, ext2/3 is only filesystem with working fsck (because that fsck was actually needed in the old days). Starting from xfs/jfs/reiser/??? means we no longer have working fsck... -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.