|To:||Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: Suggestions for xfs|
|From:||Robert Brockway <rbrockway@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:37:21 +0000 (GMT)|
|References:||<000401c5085c$facba270$0a01a8c0@pcdiano> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <20050201203908.X70122@nirmala.opentrend.net> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Net Llama! wrote:
I'm not a big fan of ext2/3 by any means, but i think its a bit near-sighted to assume that ext2/3 won't evolve in the3 future to better handle larger filesystems.
I don't claim to be a filesystem expert by any means but my understanding was the predicted problems went right to the core of ext2/3. Maybe it would be possible to work around the problems but maybe it'd be easier to accept it will have run its course by then, especially when other filesystems like xfs are showing better performance in many ways already.
Linux has dropped many core filesystems over its life (Minix and Ext were both considered the defacto standard in their time and xiafs was considered a viable alternative to ext2 once).
In any case I only use ext2/3 when I need to so if someone wants to fix the problems I say good luck to them :)
-- Robert Brockway B.Sc. Senior Technical Consultant, OpenTrend Solutions Ltd. Phone: 416-669-3073 Email: rbrockway@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.opentrend.net OpenTrend Solutions: Reliable, secure solutions to real world problems. Contributing Member of Software in the Public Interest (http://www.spi-inc.org)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|