| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:22:24 -0400 From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU> To: i@...y.li Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...mcloud.com>, linux-ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Alex Zhuravlev <bzzz@...mcloud.com>, Tao Ma <tm@....ma>, "hao.bigrat@...il.com" <hao.bigrat@...il.com> Subject: Re: bigalloc and max file size On Oct 31, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Coly Li wrote: > > Back to our topic, Ext4 doesn't have too much on-disk incompatible flag-bits now. If we get current bigalloc code merged now, we have to use another incompatible bit when we merge cluster/chunk based extent patch set. What is the appeal to you have the cluster/chunk based extent patch set? I'm not sure I understand why it's so interesting to you in the first place. Ext4's RAID support isn't particularly good, and its sweet spot really is for single disk file systems. And for cluster file systems, such as when you might build Hadoop on top of ext4, there's no real advantage of using RAID arrays as opposed to having single file systems on each disk. In fact, due to the specd of being able to check multiple disk spindles in parallel, it's advantageous to build cluster file systems on single disk file systems. I'm just curious what your use case is, because that tends to drive decision decisions in subtle ways. Regards, -- Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists