On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:56:32 -0400
"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
Certain filesystems are very good for certain types of workload. There
is not, nor will there really ever be, a one-size-fits-all filesystem.
ext3 is great for a lot of situations, and is a reasonable default
filesystem for most users, particularly desktops and workstations that
do not need to access tens or hundreds of thousands of tiny little
files per minute. Reiser4 is the winner hands-down on performance in
that type of a situation because it handles tiny files wonderfully
efficiently, but I am under the impression that it's no longer really
actively maintained, being that the guy that its named after is no
longer able to do anything with it and the programmers from the company
behind the ReiserFS family don't have the highest of motivations to
work on the filesystem currently.
"Butterfs" is looking like it is going to be the type of filesystem
that will be suitable for information systems that have a great need to
scale, and is probably not the type of filesystem that you're going to
use on an everyday basis in the home---though, it sounds like it may be
a default someday in a simplified configuration, if ext4 is indeed the
last in the line of the ext filesystems as can be speculated by
Theodore Tso's email to the LKML earlier this month.[1] I'd have no
objection to this, personally. I think that all operating systems
should at least support the freedom of choice for their users, anyway,
because no two individuals are alike and everyone has a preference for
something. Even if the preference is "just give me the default."
--- Mike
[1] http://is.gd/5oyb
--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/
|
|
