| |||||||||||||
That's the setup I have - and HATE itThat's the setup I have - and HATE itPosted Jan 8, 2009 18:56 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: That's the setup I have - and HATE it by khim Parent article: Btrfs aims for the mainline
what you want isn't anything resembling a traditional filesystem. what you want is something like the 'object based storage' things that are being discussed (but you want something far more complex than what has been proposed, let alone implemented or accepted).
defining the redundancy for each file as it is saved will also require changes to every single program out there, which is very unlikely to happen.
if you are willing to deal with different directories having different redundancy options, then what you want is doable today, with no kernel changes. it just needs userspace tools written to make it easier to deal with.
(Log in to post comments)
That's the setup I have - and HATE it Posted Jan 8, 2009 20:11 UTC (Thu) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link]
> defining the redundancy for each file as it is saved will also require
> changes to every single program out there, which is very unlikely to happen.
Probably a lot of ppl still expect filesystems to be fast, and having every node in the hierarchy and all files, having some different form of backing storage depending on redundancy requirements... *sucks through teeth* sounds expensive to me.
The "I want to know nothing" and just have it managed by some kind of Storage management system that takes care of details, does sound a better requirement to me.
Actually I don't think "every program" would need modifying, as when files are created, they can inherit the characteristics of the parent directory, as would new sub-directories.
|
|||||||||||||