Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:15:28 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: Lars Erik Gullerud <lerik@nolink.net> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org>, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XFS (read-only) support committed to CURRENT Message-ID: <20051217141528.GB27992@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <20051216132641.C29205@electra.nolink.net> References: <20051213151908.GA26821@crodrigues.org> <m37ja59ttm.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <20051216132641.C29205@electra.nolink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Lars Erik Gullerud wrote: > >Ext3fs appears to have some advantages, easy migration from and to > >ext2fs, shrinkable, data journalling, data ordering (write data blocks > >before the file metadata is written) and so on. > > ...and this has what to do with the fact that FreeBSD now supports XFS? I was wondering if the way from ext2fs to ext3fs might have been shorter, code-wise. I will skip lots of good points in defense of XFS, and I really don't mind it being supported by XFS (in fact I'm looking forward to write support). > >I don't mean this should become an advocacy discussion, as XFS surely > >has advantages, too, real-time capability and so on - but ext2fs is > >already there and has write support. > > Then use ext2fs. Isn't the availability of multiple choices great? Yes, it is :-) -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051217141528.GB27992>