From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m54F5tOQ009142 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:05:55 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 69D3F11B76DD for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2miyFXGNzRNsP3BK for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4846AF87.8010307@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:06:47 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Questions for article References: <13033.143.166.226.57.1212526129.squirrel@tomslinux.homelinux.org> <20080604053156.GB6509@infradead.org> <32954.143.166.226.42.1212588962.squirrel@tomslinux.homelinux.org> In-Reply-To: <32954.143.166.226.42.1212588962.squirrel@tomslinux.homelinux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Thomas King Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com 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