From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753774AbXDPAui (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:50:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753736AbXDPAui (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:50:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:41237 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753107AbXDPAui (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:50:38 -0400 Message-ID: <4622C851.2030509@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:50:25 -0400 From: Rik van Riel Organization: Red Hat, Inc User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061008) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David R. Litwin" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David R. Litwin wrote: >> 4: ZFS has a HUGE capacity. I don't have 30 exobytes, but I might some >> day.... > > ext4 will probably cope with that. XFS definitely has very high > limits though I admit I don't know what they are. > > XFS is also a few exobytes. The fsck for none of these filesystems will be able to deal with a filesystem that big. Unless, of course, you have a few weeks to wait for fsck to complete. Backup and restore are similar problems. When part of the filesystem is lost, you don't want to have to wait for a full restore. Sounds simple? Well, the hard part is figuring out exactly which part of the filesystem you need to restore... I don't see ZFS, ext4 or XFS addressing these issues. IMHO chunkfs could provide a much more promising approach. -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic.