[LUNI] file system limitations

[Steven Lembark]

-- scott thomason <scott at thomasons.org>

> On Tuesday 19 November 2002 06:56 am, Erik Lickerman wrote:
>> Really?  They are on version 3 with version 4 due in December, and
>> it isn't stable enough for real-world use?
>
> There are still some (many?) who consider reiser3 not quite up-to-par
> in terms of stability. I believe this was one of the factors that led
> Redhat to choose ext3 over reiser for their choice of journaling
> filesystems.

This is not to say that rfs is not going to be equally
stable as ext2. Today it isn't.

One of the issues with anything journalling is that it
will be more complicated than ext2. The extra complexity
is not bad by itself; it does mean that error recovery
is more involved and that it will have a flatter design-
to-market curve than a baseline system like ext2.

The VFS file system might be closer to prime time only
because it was based on an existing commercial product.



--
Steven Lembark                               2930 W. Palmer
Workhorse Computing                       Chicago, IL 60647
                                            +1 800 762 1582