On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 04:39 pm, Joop Boonen wrote:

I think it's a pity that reiserfs won't be the primairy filesystem anymore. Although i understand the choise.

I'm disappointed that reiser4 isn't present. Without support on the rescue disk, a kernel upgrade would leave a root-reiser4 machine unbootable not even from CD. It's really been removed, even as a possibility. The use would have matured it, I had high hopes. michaelj -- Michael James michael.james@csiro.au System Administrator voice: 02 6246 5040 CSIRO Bioinformatics Facility fax: 02 6246 5166 No matter how much you pay for software, you always get less than you hoped. Unless you pay nothing, then you get more. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 05:23:49PM +1000, Michael James wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 04:39 pm, Joop Boonen wrote:

...

I think it's a pity that reiserfs won't be the primairy filesystem anymore. Although i understand the choise.

I'm disappointed that reiser4 isn't present. Without support on the rescue disk, a kernel upgrade would leave a root-reiser4 machine unbootable not even from CD.

It's really been removed, even as a possibility.

The use would have matured it, I had high hopes.

Now that the package installation-images is opened you can easily create customized boot disks including reiser4 or whatever you like. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:38:18AM +0300, Silviu Marin-Caea wrote:

Maybe he would have liked that a lot of other people use it as this has an effect of finding the tiniest bugs.

Well, he could offer it for download if he likes that.

However I've read on the net that Hans Reiser has some personal problems (estranged wife gone missing http://www.ninareiser.com ; he's trying to get back custody of children ) and financial problems (sad fact is that reiserfs didn't make him much money, which is a shame).

It seems this man is strugling with serious Real Life trouble.

I think his personal problems are neither to be discussed in public on this mailing list, nor is this a reasonable issue for a decission whether to ship reiser4 or not. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:32:58PM +0300, Silviu Marin-Caea wrote:

On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:24, Robert Schiele wrote:

...

I think his personal problems are neither to be discussed in public on this mailing list

I didn't mean that in a gossipy way, but rather in a what-could-we-do-to-help-him way.

Well, as a general rule of thumb: If you _really_ want to help someone in such a situation then respect his privacy and don't draw his private life into public unless he asked you to do so. Did he?

...

nor is this a reasonable issue for a decission whether to ship reiser4 or not.

Oh yes it is. He's the driving force for reiserfs. Whithout him there's a large gap in reiserfs4's onward development.

What good would it be if you'd use reiserfs4, found some bug, but there would be nobody to fix it?

Think again: Should a project where there is only one person able to solve problems really be used in a critical environment? BTW: You don't have to convince Novell not to ship reiser4 because of that because this is already the case. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

Hi, Joop Boonen wrote:

Here are some links about OCFS2 (Sounds very good): http://oss.oracle.com/projects/ocfs2/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCFS2

If I didn't search wrongly, neither quota nor ACLs are supported, yet. Otherwise, it indeed looks promissing. Tobias PS: My favourite filesystem remains AdvFS of Tru64 Unix; it has a LVM build in. The filesystem can span several hard disks; you then create filesets on them. Each fileset can now occupy the whole free space (or up to a set quota limit). That way, one can have several separate file systems (actually file sets) without the need to specify the size. And it is a cluster filesystem as well. http://h30097.www3.hp.com/unix/advfs.html Unfortunally, it is not available for Linux. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Hi Jeff, Jeff Mahoney wrote:

...

...

If I didn't search wrongly, neither quota nor ACLs are supported, yet. Otherwise, it indeed looks promissing.

There are a number of features that OCFS2 is missing, but they are being gradually added. The OCFS2 guys (at Oracle, and some of us at SUSE) are working on adding a lot of them. Sparse B-Trees are currently the big holdup item, and once they're added, we get extended attributes (and ACLs, by extension), sparse files, and hashed directories pretty soon afterwards. Great. Then only quotas are missing, which we really need (otherwise an amok process/careless user can bring down the whole system).

...

...

PS: My favourite filesystem remains AdvFS of Tru64 Unix

Before my life as a Linux kernel hacker began, I was a system admin running Tru64 systems. AdvFS had a lot of really interesting features, but it was also quite fragile. I don't know how many times we ended up needing to break out the salvage tool, which was essentially the same thing as a reiserfsck --rebuild-tree -S, where it searches the disk looking for *anything* that looks like it could be part of the file system. Here, it was rather stable (as non-cluster filesystem), in the cluster it became stable/mature around the time we finally switched also the home-directory server to Linux.

We'd end up with a lot of duplicated (and potentially buggy) code. With LVM2/dm/etc, we allow *any* file system that has the capability to grow and/or shrink to take advantage of it. We found the possibility to have quotas on filesets rather nice: Each group (at the department) got its own fileset with a large quota. Thus we could grant a rather big chunk to each group with a big quota, including overcommitting the available space. Thus we didn't need to estimate too carefully, how much memory each group needed, still the quota prevented the filling of all space (amok process) and as most groups never used their available space, the overcommitting was no problem. (We had no user-specific quota for the groups, only for the students.)

File sets and file domains were an interesting concept, but I don't think it would be too difficult to extend existing file systems to behave similarly. The file system-global superblock could remain mostly the same with the root directory containing entries on where to find the sub-file system's superblock. The thing is, I just don't think it's a feature a lot of people are looking for. See above. Similar interesting concept is the project quota of XFS (see man xfs_quota): "XFS supports the notion of project quota, which can be used to implement a form of directory tree quota (i.e. to restrict a directory tree to only being able to use up a component of the filesystems available space; or simply to keep track of the amount of space used, or number of inodes, within the tree)."

At least for our use, outlined above, these two are equivalent. The only difference is that using xfs_quota, the checking of the quota is more difficult; with filesets, one can simply use "df -h ." In how far does OCFS2 support shrinking (and growing) of the filesystem? Tobias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org