User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

XFS2?

XFS2?

Posted Jan 23, 2012 21:16 UTC (Mon) by dgc (subscriber, #6611)
In reply to: XFS2? by martinfick
Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future?

No fork is needed because 99% of the code that does all the work will be common to both formats. The majority of change is in the routines that read and write the disk format, and that's a very small amount of code that is mostly isolated.

Dave.


(Log in to post comments)

XFS2?

Posted Jan 24, 2012 4:36 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

There is a lot of sharing between ext* as well and even compatibility of disk structures but they are still differently named.

XFS2?

Posted Jan 24, 2012 10:18 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Also, it will make the life of everybody easier, specially kernel developers trying to bisect a kernel (look at what happened when btrfs changed disk format).

You can always deprecate XFS1 format in the future if you wish.

XFS2?

Posted Jan 26, 2012 4:59 UTC (Thu) by sandeen (subscriber, #42852) [Link]

> You can always deprecate XFS1 format in the future if you wish.

Just like we successfully deprecated ext2 and ext3 - right? ;)

There is no reason to fork XFS, IMHO.

Get your facts straight

Posted Jan 26, 2012 8:27 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Well, original extfs was eventually deprecated and we had no way to deprecate ext2 and/or ext3 till ext4 was mature enough. In fact ext2/ext3 switch shows perfectly why such changes are better to do that way: when you introduce disk format change you usually do that to provide some new features and if people don't need these features they can continue to use old format and old, stable, codebase.

Get your facts straight

Posted Jan 27, 2012 1:07 UTC (Fri) by dgc (subscriber, #6611) [Link]

> In fact ext2/ext3 switch shows perfectly why such changes are better
> to do that way: when you introduce disk format change you usually do
> that to provide some new features and if people don't need these
> features they can continue to use old format and old, stable, codebase.

Actually, the ext2/3/4 splits show exactly why this model doesn't work. Instead of having a single code base to maintain, you have independent code bases that have to be maintained and fixes ported across all trees. What has really happened is that the "old stable" code bases have become "old stale" code bases as ext4 has moved on.

IOWs, history has already shown that we (developers) are poor at pushing fixes made in the ext4 code base back to the ext3 and ext2 code bases,and that's often because the person that made the fix is completely unaware that the problem also exists in ext2/3. There's a reason that the "use ext4 for ext2/3" config option exists - so that one code base can be used to support all three different filesystem types.

That's a big reason for not forking or renaming XFS just for changing 1% of the code base - ongoing maintenance is far simpler and less burdensome when only one code base is used for all different versions of the filesystem....

Dave.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds