Messages in this thread | | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: (reiserfs) Re: File systems are semantically impoverished compared to database | Date | Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:30:34 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
Alexander Viro writes: > On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>> For now, every app with this problem has to implement something like >> a growable (and hopefully shrinkable) filesystem within a file. >> Apps can add a block mapping layer complete with triple-indirect >> blocks, or they can copy around huge amounts of data and update >> document references as needed. > > The point being that they *do* that. Each has its own bloody format. Each > will *have* to carry that code around, unless you will manage to push > every blasted thing into the kernels. Yup, plural. Linux is not the only > UNIX.
Linux is not UNIX(R) at all. Linux is a hot new operating system designed for the next century^H^H^H^H^H^H^H38 years. UNIX(R) is dead.
> Good luck doing that. If you are going to invent a new uniform > scheme - fine, go ahead, implement it as filesystem and I will write a > loopback-mount-on-the-fly. Oh, and don't forget to make them switch to new > format. Deal?
That is one way to implement the API, but it won't let the document share allocation and namespace support with the filesystem. You still end up going through two filesystem(-like) layers.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |