Re: Questions for article

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

Thomas King wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 03:48:49PM -0500, Thomas King wrote:
>>> For the most part, XFS is used for massive filesystems (hundreds of petabytes)
>> I think undreds of petabytes is not something we commonly see today :)
>> hundreds of TB is more reasonable.
> 
> If I'm going to answer his two articles, he's speaking in the context of massive
> filesystems. True, hundreds of petabytes are not common but that's the
> environment he's talking about.
> 
> From what I'm seeing from XFS, BTRFS, ext4, and HAMMER, Linux filesystems are
> going to easily keep up with the current trend. For the massive filesystems
> Henry speaks of, XFS has some new features I don't think he's aware of and needs
> to come out in this answer.
> 
> Tom King

One thing I would be careful of is not to fall into the trap of letting
Linux filesystems get bashed over things that *nobody* really has today.
 Stuff like PNFS, OSD, DIF etc are bleeding-edge for almost *everybody*

Petabyte filesystems are hard.  For *everybody*

And hundred-petabyte filesystems aren't just uncommon, they don't exist
AFAIK.

-Eric