EXT4 Is Coming 182
ah admin writes "A series of patches has been proposed in Linux kernel mailing list earlier by a team of engineers from Red Hat, ClusterFS, IBM and Bull to extend the Ext3 filesystem to add support for very large filesystems. After a long-winded discussion, the developers came forward with a plan to roll these changes into a new version — Ext4."
define very large (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Modularizable filesystem (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone have a "more technical" link without dancing trees and with a bit about how to recover your filesystem when something goes weird with the hardware even if the filesystem is perfect?
Re:define very large (Score:5, Insightful)
ext3: 8TB total, 4TB files
ext4: 32 zettabyte (1024*1024*1024 TB), 1 exabyte files (1024*1024 TB)
Beyond that, it doesn't seem to actually change much.
Re:How does it compare to zfs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why only 48 bits? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess we'll be on to ext5 or 6 by then, though.
Re:ClusterFS (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Modularizable filesystem (Score:5, Insightful)
It's dishonest to put something in quotes when it's not a direct quote. The exact quote is:
There's a substantial difference between saying that something is more stable "as a result" of something and more stable "because" of something. He's not claiming that being out longer intrinsically makes it more stable as your misquote suggests, he's claiming that it led to reiserfs becoming more stable - because of the practices he mentioned.
In short - something being out longer == more stable? No. Something being exposed to lots of real-world use and receiving only bugfixes == more stable? Yes.
He didn't quote Adam Smith, he drew an analogy between what he was saying and the network effect. It's an entirely reasonable analogy.
What ridicule? He's actually supporting that approach. For example:
Would you care to point out where you thought he was ridiculing the UNIX approach?
Yeah, they look dumb, don't they?
I can only assume you mean something other than "technical".
Dancing trees are a fundamental part of the design. How are you meant to understand the filesystem without understanding dancing trees?
Ah, you don't mean technical at all, you mean practical for somebody who is entirely uninterested in the way the filesystem works. Perhaps Reiser4 Transaction Design Document [namesys.com] is what you are after, but I doubt it.
Well, how does a Honda Civic ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:define very large (Score:4, Insightful)
ext4: 32 zettabyte (1024*1024*1024 TB), 1 exabyte files (1024*1024 TB)
Are they just going to work on improving the 8TB paper limitation, or are they actually trying to improve on ext3 scalability? Which, currently tends to suck the big one, especially on a significant number of disks (eg: http://scalability.gelato.org/DiskScalability/Res
I also seem to keep coming up against a pretty hard 2TB block device limit in Linux (eg LVM2 lv size, LUN size for fibre attached SAN, etc). I don't really know what the reasons for it are, anyone know what technologies allow for larger single partitions?
Anyway, I've long ago settled on reiserfs (3) for speedy random access to small files, and XFS for file server type applications; though I still wonder why RedHat doesn't include any "enterprise" filesystems by default in their "enterprise" products (I know, I know, you can enable it - I did say "by default").
Linux and other Unix FSes (Score:4, Insightful)
But I'm amazed at how quickly these features are being integrated. There's functionality in Linux that allows me to easily create file-backed volumes, remote volumes, SAN LUNs, etc.. The "resize in a single command" is not fully there yet, but within 6 months I'd expect it to be.
Re:Linux and other Unix FSes (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty certain that Linux would have better filesystem tools if the developers could resist add a new filesystem every few months.
Re:My take on current filesystems (Score:4, Insightful)
I have had my
(I just keep adding on)
I lose power a lot where I live (glitches) and XFS has been utterly bullet proof.
(This filesystem has bee thru 3 motherboards, several linux distros (1 mb dead/2 upgrades), 2 cases, and so on)
If Reiser4 is about as stable as XFS, I'll glady switch everything over tomorrow on my MythTV box.
Re:Why EXT4 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people would not consider that to be "proven in the field"
By your logic, Windows Vista should have been released a year ago because it's long been "proven" stable via widespread deployment at Microsoft.
Internally, Sun has Sun software running mostly on Sun hardware, not the mis-mash of SANs, external and internal third-party hard drives, and custom RAIDs that many enterprises will have. When it's used and stable across a variety of configurations in real-world far-away-from-Sun's-debug-environements without a(n unreasable/unexpected) glitch, it can be considered "proven in the field."
Re:Sounds like a good idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's ugly, and annoying, especially for people like me who rely on ReiserFS in production. I'd love to see ReiserFS 4 in the standard kernel, it'd make my life a lot easier.
I can't use EXT2/3, it's too slow and just kills the machine for the amount of files we deal with on a lot of our systems. Going from Ext3 to ReiserFS 3 took us from a machine load of over 50 down to about 3 during stress testing recently.
Hans knows what he's doing, I just wish the kernel developers would accept and respect that (regardless of the retarded ego wars on the LKML).