On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ted Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote: >> Ah. So performance isn't the problem, it's just hard too implement. >> Would've been a lot faster if you said that earlier. > > "Too hard to implement" doesn't go far enough. It's also a matter of > near impossibility to add new features later. BSD FFS didn't get > ACL's, extended attributes, and many other features ***years*** after > Linux had them. Complexity is evil; it leads to bugs, makes things > hard to maintain, and it makes it harder to add new features later.
That was about soft updates. I'm not sure this is just as complex. I was thinking, doesn't ext have this kind of dependency tracking already? It has to write the inode after writing the data, otherwise the inode might point to garbage. > But hey, if you're so smart, you go ahead and implement them yourself. > You can demonstrate how you can do it better than everyone else. > Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time. Complex ideas are not > valid ones; or at least they certainly aren't good ones. Nobody said FSs are simple. Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=nxzymkerpue4bai0oe9cn2dcz4=+y1rqio...@mail.gmail.com
