Re: File System conversion -- ideas

rmoser
2003-06-29T20:47:46Z

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 6/29/2003 at 9:50 PM Hugo Mills wrote:

>On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 04:29:45PM -0400, rmoser wrote:
>> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>>
>> NO! You're not getting the point at all!
>>
>> You don't need a pair! If you have 10 filesystems, you need 10 sets of
>> code in each direction, not 90. You convert from the data/metadata set
>> in the first filesystem to a self-contained atom, and then back from the
>> atom to the data/metadata set in the new filesystem. The atom is object
>> oriented, so anything that can't be moved over--like ACLs or Reiser4's
>> extended attributes that nobody else has, or permissions if converting to
>> vfat--is just lost.
>
> You will, of course, ensure that your atoms contain the superset of
>all filesystem metadata semantics.
>

Yes, that's the point of object orientation. Objects I don't understand I ignore.
Objects I do understand I keep. Objects I don't understand don't confuse
me because I can see the difference between two objects.

>> Note that if the data has an attribute like "Compressed"
>> or "encrypted", it is expanded/decrypted and thus brought back to its
>> natural form before being stuffed into an atom.
>[snip]
>
>> So with 10 filesystem types, N*(N-1) or 90 pairs to go directly from one
>> filesystem's datastructures to any other's; N*2 or 20 pairs to go from
>> Metadata/Data pair -> Self-contained object oriented possibly
>> compressed atom -> Metadata/Data pair. That's N sets of code to go
>> FS_OBJECT -> atom and N sets to go from atom -> FS_OBJECT, in
>> this case 10 and 10.
>>
>> When we get to 20 filesystems, direct conversion needs 380 pieces of
>> code, whereas my method needs only 20 + 20 == 40. I obviously put
>> more thought into this than you, but that's okay; it's an obscure idea
>and
>> I don't expect everyone to think before answering.
>
> Actually:
>
>1) I think Viro did mention exactly this method in one of his mails.
>
>2) It's not an obscure idea at all -- it's one of the standard
> techniques if you've ever had to consider (let alone write!) a
> set of data-conversion routines.
>
wow, I re-invented another wheel.

>> >If you want your idea to be considered seriously - take reiserfs code,
>> >take ext3 code, copy both to userland and put together a conversion
>> >between them. Both ways. That, by definition, is easier than doing
>> >it in kernel - you have the same code available and none of the
>> >limitations/
>> >interaction with other stuff. When you have it working, well, time to
>> >see what extra PITA will come from making it coexist with other parts
>> >of kernel (and with much more poor runtime environment).
>> >
>>
>> That would be much harder to maintain as well. It would have to be
>altered
>> every time the filesystem code in the kernel is changed.
>
> Yes, but the point is it's a much easier thing to implement and
>test the concept than diving straight into kernel code. You don't have
>to maintain it for very long (if at all) -- just long enough to prove
>to everyone that this kind of conversion is possible, and that they
>should help you roll it into the kernel.
>

I can't code it. I want to, it'd be FUN, but I can't.

>> >AFAICS, it is _very_ hard to implement. Even outside of the kernel.
>> >If you can get it done - well, that might do a lot for having the
>> >idea considered seriously. "Might" since you need to do it in a way
>> >that would survive transplantation into the kernel _and_ would scale
>> >better that O((number of filesystem types)^2).
>>
>> I've beaten the O((FS_COUNT)^2) already. And by the way, it's
>> O((FS_COUNT)*(FS_COUNT - 1_). There's exactly O(2*FS_COUNT)
>> and o(2*FS_COUNT) sets of code needed total to be able to convert
>> between any two filesystems.
>
> There's no such thing as O(x*(x-1)). This is precisely O(x^2).
>Similarly, O(2*x) is precisely the same as O(x). If you're going to
>try to use mathematics to demonstrate your point, please at least make
>sure that you're using it _right_.
>

Big O notation is inappropriate here because it measures time complexity;
however, I was following Viro's lead. We're using it to measure code
complexity, sorry.

>> Now, what's impractical is maintaining two sets of code that do exactly
>> the same thing. Why maintain code here to read the filesystems, and
>> also in the kernel?
>
> It's not a maintenance thing at all -- it's a matter of
>demonstrating that you can walk before you try running.
>

Erm, if you're going to do it at all, do it right first. Actually demonstrating
it is not the only way to prove it's possible.

>> Just do it in the kernel. Don't lose sight of the fact
>> that the final goal (after all else is done) is to modify VFS to actually
>> run this thing as a filesystem. THAT is what's going to be a bitch. The
>> conversions are simple enough.
>
> Hugo.
>
>--
>=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
> PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
> --- For months now, we have been making triumphant retreats ---
> before a demoralised enemy who is advancing
> in utter disorder.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQE+/1D7ssJ7whwzWGARArdCAJ4pBlRI5wUCQuto8a/UJS89VgVGqACglV2k
>yZmfIJpKxN2qEjONnx5FicA=
>=iJlv
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Calmest input I've seen yet.

--Bluefox Icy