Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

Nathan Scott
2006-06-10T03:50:15Z

On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Sonny Rao <sonny@burdell.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:35:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > All that being said, Linux's filesystems are looking increasingly crufty
> > > and we are getting to the time where we would benefit from a greenfield
> > > start-a-new-one.
> >
> > I'm curious about this comment; in what way are they _collectively_
> > looking crufty ?
>
> We seem to be lagging behind "the industry" in some areas - handling large
> devices, high bandwidth IO, sophisticated on-disk data structures, advanced
> manageability, etc.

Er, no. I'm not aware of many filesystems that are in the same
league as XFS on those first three specific points. It certainly
has "ondisk sophistication" very well covered, trust me. ;)

We are definately not lagging on handling large devices nor high
bandwidth I/O anyway - XFS serves up very close to the hardware
capabilities for high end hardware and it scales well. One could
come up with a different list of areas where Linux filesystems
might be lagging, but that list above ain't right.

> I mean, although ZFS is a rampant layering violation and we can do a lot of
> the things in there (without doing it all in the fs!) I don't think we can
> do all of it.

*nod*.

cheers.

--
Nathan