[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS architecture ?

To: Jim Mostek <mostek@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS architecture ?
From: Ken McDonell <kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:01:20 +1000
Cc: Stefan Smietanowski <stefan@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS mailinglist <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <200004032306.SAA34634@fsgi344.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jim Mostek wrote:
> Let me strongly disagree with:
> >If we end up with (b) this is a
> >relatively small additional development effort.
> The biggest part would come in all the support/testing/...  on the
> different architecture combinations.  If the on-disk format and log format
> are all fixed, it greatly simplifies things.

Let me strongly disagree.

OK, Jim and I are in a deadly disagree-disagree embrace now ... 8^)>

Well not really ... I said "small additional _development_ effort".

I should have stressed that beyond the development effort there is:

- code obfuscation and complexity (we need to change internal interfaces
  to push down the "architecture" from the mount structure into places
  it has not been needed before)
- run-time overhead
- testing complexity
- additional support and debugging pain
- log recovery (an unsolved problem)

Jim and I are in a deadly agree-agree embrace on the proposition that
big endian everywhere is the preferred position provided any
performance penalties are acceptably low.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>