From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030391AbWFISwF (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:52:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030390AbWFISwE (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:52:04 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:38549 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030387AbWFISwC (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:52:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4489C34B.1080806@garzik.org> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:51:55 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Frost , Alex Tomas , Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 References: <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> <20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org> <448997FA.50109@garzik.org> <44899A1C.7000207@garzik.org> <4489B83E.9090104@sbcglobal.net> <20060609181426.GC5964@schatzie.adilger.int> In-Reply-To: <20060609181426.GC5964@schatzie.adilger.int> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.1 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.2 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jun 09, 2006 13:04 -0500, Matthew Frost wrote: >> Alex Tomas wrote: >>> sorry, I disagree. for example, NUMA isn't default and shouldn't be. >>> but we have it in the tree and any one may choose to use it. >> NUMA is designed to cope with a hardware feature, which not everybody >> has. Filesystem upgrades are not qualitatively similar; it does not >> depend on one's hardware design as to whether one uses ext3, let alone >> extents. Your logic is faulty. > > If you have a > 8TB block device (which is common in large RAID devices > today, will be a single disk in a couple of years) then it is important > that your filesystem work with this block device. > > If ext2 and ext3 didn't support > 2GB files (which was a filesystem > feature added in exactly the same way as extents are today, and nobody > bitched about it then) then they would be relegated to the same status > as minix and xiafs and all the other filesystems that are stuck in the > "we can't change" or "we aren't supported" camps. PRECISELY. So you should stop modifying a filesystem whose design is admittedly _not_ modern! ext3 is already essentially xiafs-on-life-support, when you consider today's large storage systems and today's filesystem technology. Just look at the ugly hacks needed to support expanding an ext3 filesystem online. Jeff