Chris Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 02:32:09 AM +0100 Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EIP; c013f911 filldir+20b/221 =
Trace; c013f706 filldir+0/221
Trace; c0136e01 reiserfs_getblk+2a/16d
Here is a patch against our 2.4 code (3.6.25) that does the
same as
Edward wrote:
Reiserfs in linux-2.4.1-pre8 does not properly with the RAID5 code that
is in that kernel. It is easy to get corrupted filesystem on device in
less than 1 minute. Please, do not use it (reiserfs) on RAID5 devices.
We are trying to figure out what is wrong.
Edward
There is
We'll test and get back to you.
Hans
Neil Brown wrote:
There have been assorted reports of filesystem corruption on raid5 in
2.4.0, and I have finally got a patch - see below.
I don't know if it addresses everybody's problems, but it fixed a very
really problem that is very reproducable.
Tony Hoyle wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
You're not getting data loss, but access denied, when hitting
incompatibilities, and it looks like it hits 2.2 hard while 2.4 is less
of a problem. Please search the reiserfs list archives for details.
vs-13048 is a good search term, I believe.
Alan Cox wrote:
I think with the growing acceptance of ReiserFS in the Linux
community, it is tiresome to have to apply a patch again and again
just to get working NFS. 2.2 NFS horrors all over again.
The zero copy patches were basically self contained and tested for 6 months.
The
Alan Cox wrote:
Are you referring to Neil Brown's nfs operations patch as being as ugly as
hell, or something else? Just want to understand what you are saying before
arguing.
Andi has sent me some stuff to look at. He listed four implementations and I've
only seen two of them
did
Steve Lord wrote:
XFS is very fast most of the time (deleting a file is so slow its like us
ing
old BSD systems). Im not familiar enough with its behaviour under Linux yet.
Hmm, I just removed 2.2 Gbytes of data in 3 files in 37 seconds (14.4
seconds system time), not tooo
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Hans Reiser writes:
Tell us what to code for, and so long as it doesn't involve looking
up files by their 32 bit inode numbers we'll probably be happy to
code to it. The Neil Brown stuff is already coded for though.
Next time around, when you update
Samium Gromoff wrote:
Hello,
I`m still experiencing file tail corruptions
on subj.
And more: after i had restored bblocked patrition
(by relying on drive`s ability to remap bblks on
write by wroting small modification of debugreiserfs
which zeroified all
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally
unique and still avoids referencing physical location. You also
don't need to manually set LABELs for UUID to work: all e2fsprogs
over the past couple of years have set UUID on partitions, and
the users different advantages.
Hans
Yury Yu. Rupasov wrote:
Yury Yu. Rupasov wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Andrey Tulenev wrote:
Hello reiserfs-list,
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0105.1/0358.html
http://bulma.lug.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=626
Ricardo Galli wrote:
Hi,
you can find at http://bulma.lug.net/static/ a few new benchmarks among
Reiser, XFS and Ext2 (also one with JFS).
This time there is a comprehensive Hans' Mongo benchmarks
(http://bulma.lug.net/static/mongo/ )and a couple of kernel compilations and
My apologies, I meant that the make is probably compiler bound (I said CPU
bound) not FS bound.
We find that one must use cp and similar utilities (not compilers) to become FS
bound when using a Linux FS (unlike the older Unixes for which compiles were
considered excellent benchmarks).
Hans
Ricardo Galli wrote:
I was equally suprised, not only due to the wall-clock time but also to the
CPU. So, I think the cache is the major player when compiling a kernel that
was _just_ copied from another file system (still in buffer/cache).
You might consider rebooting to flush the cache.
monkeyiq wrote:
Hi,
Could I please be CC'd replies.
To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
to use the current one for a while before returning
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
a bad block you are stuck.
reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has
J Sloan wrote:
Excellent!
Will this be in resierfs 4.0 then?
cu
jjs
Hans Reiser schrieb:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was written after
code freeze.
No, version 4 won't ship until september
Erik Mouw wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was
written after code freeze.
IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got
Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 22:10, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Peter Braam writes:
File system journal recovery can corrupt a snapshot, because it
copies data that needs to be preserved in a snapshot. During
journal replay such data may be copied again, but the source
Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
This happened to me yesterday on kernel-2.4.4-6mdk (Mandrake cooker, based
on 2.4.4-ac14), single reiser root filesystem, mounted with default options.
Hardware - ASUS CUSL2 (i815e chipset), Fujitsu UDMA-4 drive.
I tried to change hostname and did not have the
known VFS bug, ask viro for details, 2.4.5 is not stable because of it, use
2.4.4
Hans
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 05:04:50PM -0500, Jordan wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I'm staying on 2.4.5-ac5 for whatever it's worth (putting my life on the
line for the
Alexander Viro wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
known VFS bug, ask viro for details, 2.4.5 is not stable because of it, use
2.4.4
Different issue. Missing lock_kernel()/unlock_kernel() in kill_super()
appeared in -pre6 and was fixed in -ac2 or so. -ac5 apparently had
Why are people afraid to put Neil Brown's code into 2.4? It works, we have tons
of users using it, it is the only nfs solution that has a tested reiserfs user
base, don't worry that it isn't tested and shouldn't go into 2.4 because it is
better tested than any of these quick fixes that are
get patch from www.namesys.com, bug was added and fixed by viro, we just put the
patch up while waiting for 2.4.6 to come out.
Hans
Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote:
Hello!
I just mkreiserfsed a new partition (a 50g hardware raid0 array, I know
this is just a testing machine),
I really think Rik has it right here. In particular, an MP3 player needs to be able
to say, I have
X milliseconds of buffer so make my worst case latency X milliseconds. The number of
requests is
the wrong metric, because the time required per request depends on disk geometry, disk
caching,
If I understand your elevator algorithm, you switch between two queues, filling one
queue while
removing from another queue.
If you modify this to only be invoked when starvation of is detected, that is, to only
prevent
filling the removing queue when the oldest unsatisfied request exceeds
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
One important point on remirroring I did not mention in my post. In
NetWare, remirroring scans the disk BACKWARDS (n0) to prevent
artificial starvation while remirring is going on. This was another
optimization we learned the hard way by trying numerous
Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:22:16AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
If I may ask a potentially stupid question, how can request latency be
anything but a factor of time? Latency is how /long/ you (or the computer)
/waits/ for something. That defines it as a
I think Xuan's algorithm is good, so I want to add to it.:-)
Ragnar, I don't understand your objection to it. It is always the case that if you
specify real
time constraints that are impossible then they aren't met.
If you want to get fancy you could sort all expired time limit requests by
Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 03:23:26PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
I think Xuan's algorithm is good, so I want to add to it.:-)
Ragnar, I don't understand your objection to it. It is always the
case that if you specify real
time constraints that are impossible
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
Can I tell them not to worry about the
Nathan Dabney wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
networking code, so much better isn't
James Lewis Nance wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
who has already done such work.
Hans,
exactly what you want to measure? I have UP, 2way-SMP and 4way-SMP
machines all of which have
David, did you determine if it was a memory bug?
Just to note: stack trace doesn't involve reiserfs at all. Other people
suggested that it may me memory bug.
Nikita.
Hans Reiser writes:
Who is taking this one?
HansReturn-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
We'll try to reproduce this when the guys get in for work this morning, thanks for the
bug report.
Elena, add symlink testing to mongo.sh so that it gets tested by our regression tests.
Hans
Andy Robinson wrote:
Hi,
I tried the linux-2.4.0-test9-resiserfs-3.6.18-patch on both
Thanks for the bug report, we'll investigate.
Hans
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
Hi Hans,
Simply starting the validation phase of SPEC SFS with NFS mounted reiserfs
filesystem panics as shown in the log below. A quick look at the source
suggests that _get_block_create_0() (and therefore, more
Bug reports that are hardware failures masquerading as reiserfs bugs
dominate our mailing list. We also get bug reports from users with
versions that are prior to 2.4.4. We are now working on making the code
more likely to identify a hardware failure as a hardware failure
(without killing
Dirk Mueller wrote:
Now consider a good amount of fragmentation because those files get created
over time (weeks, months etc). and you quickly degenerade to a scanning
speed of maybe 10-20 files per second (Athlon 800, IBM 60GB HD with roughly
35MB/s linear read). It was that horrible that
Alan Cox wrote:
that reiserfs has had lots of bugs, and is marked as experimental in kernel
2.4.4. Not to mention that the people of RH discourage there users from using
it.
At the time Red Hat 7.1 was mastered Reiserfs was not stable. The reiserfs in
the RH kernel has some of the tail
Daniel Podlejski wrote:
In linux-kernel, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: We are waiting for a server with dual PIII, RAID 1,0 and 5 18Gb scsi disks to
: come so we can change our proxy server, that will run on Linux with Squid.
: One disk will go inside (I think?) and the other 4 on a tower
I would encourage all of you to consider using a fractal fileset generator such as
reiserfs_fract_tree.c such as we use for mongo.pl which we use for internal
benchmarking. You can get a copy at www.namesys.com in the benchmarking section,
and then tune it as suits your needs. I think that one
Matthias Andree wrote:
If you're deploying a cache partition such as /var/squid (possibly
having log files in another /var/log partition on another disk drive),
what's the point about not running (e. g.) mke2fs and squid -z on boot,
as well as mounting the system partitions (/usr)
Tony Hoyle wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
ext3fs has never given me any problems, but I did not have it in
production use where I discovered major ReiserFS - kNFSd
incompatibilities. ext3 has a 0.0.x version number which suggests it's
not meant for production use.
Hmm... Reiserfs is
Daniel Phillips wrote:
Graciously accepted. Coming up with something sensible in a mere 6
months would be a minor miracle. ;-)
- what happens if the user forgets to close the transaction?
then the user has branched into his own version, or at least that would be my
take on it. Another
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
With Linux ext2, and some other systems, when you create files in a
new directory, the file system remembers their order:
$ mkdir new
$ cd new
$ touch one two three four
$ ls -U
one two three four
(1) Is there any standard that says a system should
This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and complain, in the
reiserfs Makefile.
Hans
Jan Kasprzak wrote:
Hello,
with ReiserFS support in 2.4.1 I have decided to give it a try.
I created a filesystem on a spare partition, mounted it as /mnt,
and tried
Chris Mason wrote:
Hans, decisions about proper compilers should not be made in each
individual part of the kernel. If unpatched gcc 2.96 is getting reiserfs
broke is broke. If you use reiserfs, DO NOT use 2.96. Period. Nobody gains
by letting a single user make this mistake.
wrong,
Alan Cox wrote:
So, did Linus say no? If not, let's ask him with a patch. Quite simply,
neither we nor the users should be burdened with this, and the patch removes
the burden.
Since egcs-1.1.2 and gcc 2.95 miscompile the kernel strstr code dont forget
to stop those being used as
Alan Cox wrote:
Users cannot use gcc 2.96 as shipped in RedHat 7.0 if they want to use
reiserfs. It is that simple. How can you even consider defending allowing the
use of it without requiring a positive affirmation by the user that they don't
know what they are doing and want to do
Alan Cox wrote:
As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
C code about to be compiled. So I can't really blame Hans if he
Alan Cox wrote:
my convenience matters as much as that of the users. I don't want to use
#ifdefs, I want it to die explosively and verbosely informatively. make isn't
the most natural language for that, but I am sure Yura can find a way.
Run a small shell check and let it fail if the
Alan Cox wrote:
It makes sense to refuse to build a piece of the kernel if it break's
a machine - anything else is a timebomb waiting to explode.
The logical conclusion of that is to replace the entire kernel tree with
#error "compiler or program might have a bug. Aborting"
No, this
Alan Cox wrote:
their kernel, something putting #ifdefs all over it will mean they have to
mess around to fix too.
A moment of precision here. We won't test to see if the right compiler is used,
we will just test for the wrong one.
Ok that makes a lot more sense
Ok, so with
uot; wrote:
On 02.02 Hans Reiser wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
Run a small shell check and let it fail if the shell stuff errors.
The fragment you want is
if [ -e /bin/rpm ]; then
X=`rpm -q gcc`
if [ "$X" = "gcc-2.96-54" ]; then
Alan Cox wrote:
administrator that has worked in large multi hundred million dollar compani=
es where 1 hour of downtime =3D=3D $75,000 in lost income proactive prevent=
ion IS the right answer. If the gcc people need to compile with the .96 rh =
version then they can apply a removal
Alan Cox wrote:
In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac that
way.
Alan Cox wrote:
No. There are *many* other compilers out there which are much *more* broken
then anything RedHat has recently shipped. Unfortunatly, there is no easy
way to accuratly test for such bugs (because once they can be boiled down to
a simple test they are very rapidly fixed,
Alan Cox wrote:
Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac that
way.
NO!! It should NOT fail at mount time, it should fail at compile time.
I was thinking boot time.
and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reboot to
the
Alan Cox wrote:
I was thinking boot time.
and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reboot to
the old kernel and recompile rather than making them just recompile?
I want to make sure they get a sane clear message telling them where to
find the correct
I know that our number of users has increased, but I doubt that the increase is
sufficient to match the marked increase in bug reports on reiserfs-list. Please
be patient as we work on this. We will issue a patch this week that will fix
some bugs (NFS i_generation count losing, and space
Daniel Stone wrote:
On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
mbox'es randomly.
what kind of corruption are you seeing?
Zeroed
David Ford wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
mbox'es randomly.
Using the old-style Reiser FS format, 2.4.2-pre1, Evolution, on a CMD640
chipset with the fixes enabled.
This also occurs in some log files, but I put it down to
Alan Cox wrote:
Before you put that down to reiserfs can you chek 2.4.2-pre2. It may be
problems below the reiserfs layer
I forgot, this bug exists on reiserfs for Linux 2.2.*, so it isn't going to be
fixed by 2.4.2 (assuming that the bug is not in 2.2.*).
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this
Adrian Phillips wrote:
Does your test procedure include other systems, for example reiserfs
plus NFS ?
Our NFS testing is simply inadequate, we need a copy of LADDIS but haven't found
the money for it yet.
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
Adrian Phillips wrote:
"Hans" == Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hans Adrian Phillips wrote:
Does your test procedure include other systems, for example
reiserfs plus NFS ?
Hans Our NFS testing is simply inadequate, we need a copy of
H
Alan Cox wrote:
LADDIS is the industry standard benchmark for NFS. It crashes for ReiserFS and
NFS. We can't afford to buy it, as it is proprietary software. Once Nikita has
finished testing his changes, we will ask someone to test it for us though.
Do you know if the connectathon
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
Hans Reiser writes:
Alan Cox wrote:
[Ablert Cahalan]
In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Stone wrote:
On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Stone wrote:
On 11 Feb 2001
Chris Mason wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
If so, it may be caused
Chris Mason wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
If so, it may be caused
monstr will debug this and elena will enter it into our buglist file.
Hans
Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
Hello
I am getting musch the same types of corruption. I am on a K6-2 with a
30Gb IBM HD and 256Mb RAM running vanilla 2.4.3 with iptables and squid
caching proxy. The problems arise on
Maciej Soltysiak wrote:
)
Feb 6 17:07:47 dns kernel: hdc: dma_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }
Feb 6 17:07:47 dns kernel: hdc: dma_intr: error=0x84 { DriveStatusError BadCRC }
this means bad hard drive, or at least a bad sector on it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 15:55 -0400, Keenan Pepper wrote:
Ingo Molnar's realtime-preempt patches used to be based on the -mm
kernels, but now they appear to be based on the mainline kernels, so
they don't support reiser4 (at least until reiser4 is merged into
mainline,
David Masover wrote:
That's why we're trying to find something that people won't actually
touch, especially since if we design it right, this will be the last
delimiter introduced at the fs/vfs level.
Uh, no, there needs to be about a dozen or so more.
But not this year.
-
To unsubscribe
You might look into SFS by David Mazieres, some concepts in it are
likely to interest you.
Hans
Vlad C. wrote:
--- Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please treat at greater length how your proposal
differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires
Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday July 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
Maybe it is worth repeating Al Viro's suggestion at this point. I
don't have a reference but the idea was basically that if you open
/foo and get filedescriptor N, then
/proc/self/fds/N-meta
is a
Peter Staubach wrote:
Vlad C. wrote:
--- Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please treat at greater length how your proposal
differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which
Peter Staubach wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something
ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for?
Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help
NFS? Do you think that NFS should look
Hubert Chan wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:06:19 -0500, David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hubert Chan wrote:
The main thing blocking file-as-dir is that there are some
locking(IIRC?) issues. And, of course, some people wouldn't want it
to be merged into the mainline kernel.
David Masover wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Hubert Chan wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:06:19 -0500, David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hubert Chan wrote:
The main thing blocking file-as-dir is that there are some
locking(IIRC?) issues. And, of course
David Masover wrote:
Now, can anyone think of a situation where we want user-created
hardlinks inside metadata? More importantly, what do we do about it?
I think the equivalent of symlinks would be good enough to get by on for
now for most linking of metafiles. Maybe some years from now
I got it slightly wrong.
One can have hardlinks to a directory without cycles provided that one
does not have hardlinks from the children of that directory to any file
not a child of that directory. (Mountpoints currently implement that
restriction.)
Question: can one implement that lesser
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Okay, so you are suggesting that file-as-dir would provide the user
interface for enabling the encryption or compression. Alternatively,
though, an ioctl could be used to control compression and encryption.
Why is it that /proc does not use an ioctl? Use of
Hubert Chan wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:50:08 -0400 EDT, Alexander G. M. Smith [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
That sounds equivalent to no hard links (other than the usual parent
directory one). If there's any directory with two links to it, then
there will be a cycle somewhere!
What we
Martin Waitz wrote:
hoi :)
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:32:00PM -0600, Jonathan Briggs wrote:
You could do filesystems in userspace too and just use the kernel's
block layer.
but you can't do that in an library, you have to use a filesystem
server in order to get access control.
But you
David Masover wrote:
So, will the format change happen at mount time? Will it need a
special mount flag? Will I need to use debugfs or some other offline
tool?
First we make sure we have the right answer. Have we solved the cycle
problem? Can we run out of memory as Horst/Nikita suggest?
Nate Diller wrote:
as an example, if a program were to store some things it needs access
to in its executable's attributes, it should have the option of
keeping a hard reference to something, so that it can't be deleted out
from underneath. this enables sane sharing of resources without
David Masover wrote:
And, once we start talking about applications, /meta will be more
readily supported (as in, some apps will go through a pathname and
stop when they get to a file, and then there's tar). On apps which
don't have direct support for /meta, you'd be navigating to the file
Horst von Brand wrote:
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I think the exokernel approach by Frans is a very interesting approach.
I wish I had the experience with it necessary to know if it was
effective. I do NOT take the position that name resolution should be in
the kernel. I
Jonathan Briggs wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:44 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Hubert Chan wrote:
And a question: is it feasible to store, for each inode, its parent(s),
instead of just the hard link count?
Ooh, now that is an interesting old idea I haven't considered in 20
David Lang wrote:
remember that Hans is on record (over a year ago) arguing that R3
should not be fixed becouse R4 was replacing it.
No, I said and say that V3 should not have features added to it, because
features should not be added to a stable branch. Bug fixes are good.
There are a few
Ed Tomlinson wrote:
On Sunday 10 July 2005 01:10, Horst von Brand wrote:
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
No Flame from me. One thing to remember is that Hans and friends
_have_ supported R3 for years.
Horst von Brand wrote:
It's not always
nescesary to let the demand create the means. Give programmers
some powerful tools and wait and see what wonderful things start
to evolve.
The sad truth is that if you give a random collection of people
Jim Crilly wrote:
I thought r3 was journaled from the beginning; the Namesys site credits
Chris with the addition of a relocated and large journal. And yes, a good
bit of the patches were from him.
Chris and I disagree about QA methodology, but I am deeply in debt to
him for his contributions.
Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
I think ... and .meta both serve as a logical delimiter. However
some programs implement their own ... which would make it clash with
them. Naturally if some program created a directory called .meta we're
equally screwed.
I chose '' (four dots) because it
Horst von Brand wrote:
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
I think ... and .meta both serve as a logical delimiter. However
some programs implement their own ... which would make it clash with
them. Naturally if some program created a directory called .meta
Neil Brown wrote:
Maybe it is worth repeating Al Viro's suggestion at this point. I
don't have a reference but the idea was basically that if you open
/foo and get filedescriptor N, then
/proc/self/fds/N-meta
is a directory which contains all the meta stuff for /foo.
Then it is trivial to
Please treat at greater length how your proposal differs from NFS.
Hans
Vlad C. wrote:
Recent discussion on ReiserFS 4 has focused on the
advantages and disadvantages of VFS at the kernel
level versus the Desktop Environment (DE) level. I
believe network locations should be administered by
the
1 - 100 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
