From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Tomas Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:07:21 +0400 Message-ID: References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com> <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> <20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org> <448997FA.50109@garzik.org> <44899A1C.7000207@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Tomas , Andreas Dilger Return-path: To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: <44899A1C.7000207@garzik.org> (Jeff Garzik's message of "Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:56:12 -0400") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org >>>>> Jeff Garzik (JG) writes: JG> Think about how this will be deployed in production, long term. JG> If extents are not made default at some point, then no one will use JG> the feature, and it should not be merged. sorry, I disagree. for example, NUMA isn't default and shouldn't be. but we have it in the tree and any one may choose to use it. the same with extents. let's have it in. but let's make clear it's experimental, it makes sense for large files only, it isn't backward compatible and so on. thanks, Alex