On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 02:21:09PM -0400, Chris Mason (chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > Sure it is interesting as studing anything new, but there is nothing in > > advfs which can prevent btrfs from success. Virtually nothing. > > Advfs is quite old technology built on top of almost 20 years old ideas > > and hardware, while the former can still be (and likely is) valid, > > hardware made significant progress. > > In general, the rules that make filesystems go haven't changed in a long > time. Disks are slow, ram is faster, and cpu is both infinitely fast > and important to share with other things running on the hardware. I believe if things are that simple, you would not start btrfs? :) > There is a great deal we can learn from any long standing FS in terms of > layout optimizations, allocation policies and ease of use. Sure. > Is there code we can lift 100% from advfs? It is hard to say for sure, > but being able to copy policy and basic algorithms is definitely > important. There was similar xfs migration story, and still there is btrfs. I completely agree that there might be some very interesting ideas implemented, but I believe that all them we could already know about, and porting theirs implementation into the new FS will not be easy steps. I fully appreciate advfs became open and belive that it will get some commnunity support, but I think that we are already behind its milestone. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
