Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

Jörn Engel
2007-05-16T13:58:03Z

On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:41:10 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> JÃ¶rn> On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> JÃ¶rn> How many of you have worked for IBM before? Vowels are not
> evil. ;)
>
> Nope, they're not. I just think that LogFS isn't descriptive enough,
> or more accurately, is the *wrong* description of this filesystem.

That was the whole point. JFFS2, the journaling flash filesystem, is a
strictly log-structured filesystem. LogFS has a journal.

It is also the filesystem that tries to scale logarithmically, as Arnd
has noted. Maybe I should call it Log2 to emphesize this point. Log1
would be horrible scalability.

> flashfs works for me. It's longer, but hey, that's ok. Even flshfs
> might work. Oh wait, flesh? flash? flush? Too confusing... :-)

Maybe. FFS or flash filesystem already exists. And YAFFS, yet another
flash filesystem, would be older than flashfs.

My experience is that no matter which name I pick, people will complain
anyway. Previous suggestions included:
jffs3
jefs
engelfs
poofs
crapfs
sweetfs
cutefs
dynamic journaling fs - djofs
tfsfkal - the file system formerly known as logfs

Plus today:
FFFS
flashfs
fredfs
bob
shizzle

Imo they all suck. LogFS also sucks, but it allows me to make a stupid
joke and keep my logfs.org domain.

Jörn

--
There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other is
to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C. A. R. Hoare