| To: | "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Questions for article |
| From: | Thomas King <kingttx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:16:02 -0500 (CDT) |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Importance: | Normal |
| In-reply-to: | <20080604053156.GB6509@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <13033.143.166.226.57.1212526129.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080604053156.GB6509@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | SquirrelMail/1.4.8 |
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 03:48:49PM -0500, Thomas King wrote: >> For the most part, XFS is used for massive filesystems (hundreds of >> petabytes) > > I think undreds of petabytes is not something we commonly see today :) > hundreds of TB is more reasonable. If I'm going to answer his two articles, he's speaking in the context of massive filesystems. True, hundreds of petabytes are not common but that's the environment he's talking about. From what I'm seeing from XFS, BTRFS, ext4, and HAMMER, Linux filesystems are going to easily keep up with the current trend. For the massive filesystems Henry speaks of, XFS has some new features I don't think he's aware of and needs to come out in this answer. Tom King |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | vfs dmapi handle generation problem, Tim Jödicke |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Questions for article, Emmanuel Florac |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Questions for article, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Questions for article, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |