----- Forwarded message from Nico Schottelius <nico-lkml-20110623@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ----- To: LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:53:37 +0200 From: Nico Schottelius <nico-lkml-20110623@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Mis-Design of Btrfs? Good morning devs, I'm wondering whether the raid- and volume-management-builtin of btrfs is actually a sane idea or not. Currently we do have md/device-mapper support for raid already, btrfs lacks raid5 support and re-implements stuff that has already been done. I'm aware of the fact that it is very useful to know on which devices we are in a filesystem. But I'm wondering, whether it wouldn't be smarter to generalise the information exposure through the VFS layer instead of replicating functionality: Physical: USB-HD SSD USB-Flash | Exposes information to Raid: Raid1, Raid5, Raid10, etc. | higher levels Crypto: Luks | LVM: Groups/Volumes | FS: xfs/jfs/reiser/ext3 v Thus a filesystem like ext3 could be aware that it is running on a USB HD, enable -o sync be default or have the filesystem to rewrite blocks when running on crypto or optimise for an SSD, ... Cheers, Nico -- PGP key: 7ED9 F7D3 6B10 81D7 0EC5 5C09 D7DC C8E4 3187 7DF0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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
