Re: File System conversion -- ideas

["Leonard Milcin Jr." <thervoy@post.pl>]

Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:
> If you have to change filesystem type, I think it is because you have a 
> good reason to do it. I can't imagine the reason explaining the need of 
> converting filesystem if you use this system as home desktop. For 
> ordinary user filesystem is just used for storing data and managing 
> permissions to that data. These are not real-time or 
> performance-critical systems. Thus most of the popular filesystems like 
> ext2, ext3, reiserfs basically fit their needs. If they choose right 
> filesystem type at startup, they could use it for a time of life of 
> their hard disk.
> 
> There are very few situations when you really need to convert 
> filesystem. Most of the time this operation is done by person who have 
> some experience with computers, and highly probable by person who has 
> access to additional hard disks, etc. I have never heard of one who had 
> to change filesystem type, and had no access to additional equipment.
> 
> I don't want to say it is not possible, to provide such a function 
> safely. What I want to say is that kernel developers should not 
> complicate filesystem code without *very* good reason. I think that 
> providing on-the-fly conversion capability is not a good reason. Good 
> reason is when you can improve usability for many users and most of the 
> time, not when you ease one operation needed by very few users few times 
> in their life, especially when they can do what they need by just 
> transferring their data back and forth to another disk, or machine.

Ok, I forgot about enterprise users with lots of data, and probably 
lacking free space, so I missed a point.

-- 
"Unix IS user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are."
                                                        -- Tollef Fog Heen