On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 06:07:40PM +0200, Amir G. wrote:
As long as Next3 uses fields which have already assigned to ext4, this
is a claim that you can not make correctly. Because, you see, the
ext4 is also an implementation of the extended f/s format, and those
field assignments have already been made.
As long as you are willing to say that, then sure, let's work towards
that goal.
If you do the "move-on-write" trick, you just have to split the extent
and do a COW of the extent tree and/or the inode. So for a single
block, the performance hit the same, yes? But in the long-run, it's
probably more efficient to do "move-on-write".
Technically speaking, it's possible to do it both way, yes? I'm not
sure why you consider this such a important design decision. We can
even play games where for some files we might do copy-on-write, and
for some files, we do move-on-write. It's always possible to check
the COW bitmaps to decide what had happened.
In any case, if this is all you have to do, I'm not sure why you said
it was fundamentally impossible to support extents with the Next3
design.
Best regards,
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html