Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 13:48 UTC
Windows Earlier today, OSNews ran a story on a presentation held by Microsoft's Eric Traut, the man responsible for the 200 or so kernel and virtualisation engineers working at the company. Eric Traut is also the man who wrote the binary translation engine for in the earlier PowerPC versions of VirtualPC (interestingly, this engine is now used to run XBox 1 [x86] games on the XBox 360 [PowerPC]) - in other words, he knows what he is talking about when it comes to kernel engineering and virtualisation. His presentation was a very interesting thing to watch, and it offered a little bit more insight into Windows 7, the codename for the successor to Windows Vista, planned for 2010.
Thread beginning with comment 279896
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: my dream
by sbergman27 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: my dream"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

One really good thing about living in the year 2007 is that both the hardware and software creators got out of the "let's add 4 more bits" mindset that we lived with through the 80s and 90s. Remember all those "barriers" we broke, only to face them again in a few years? Now we have the opposite problem: Adding an excessive number of bits gratuitously for marketing reasons. That's a far lesser problem though. As an old friend of mine was fond of saying: Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. ;-)

The ext3->ext4 transition is, hopefully, the last major barrier we will face for some time. (Famous last words!)

Edited 2007-10-22 18:17

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: my dream
by losethos2 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 18:31 in reply to "RE[3]: my dream"
losethos2 Member since:
2007-10-22

Is ext4 128 bits? I tend to think that's excessive, but maybe you might have virtual drives composed of several physical ones and it might prove convenient to use high bits for physical drive number, or if they were on a network, include numbers for that. I picked 64-bits for my filesystem, but I can see reasons for 128.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: my dream
by sbergman27 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 18:35 in reply to "RE[4]: my dream"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Is ext4 128 bits?
"""

No. (Can you *imagine* the ruckus on LKML if anyone proposed such a thing?!) But the current ext3 filesystem size limitation is only about 16 terabytes, depending on architecture. It does not take full advantage of 64 bit. Ext4 raises that to an exabyte. And adds extents, as well. But that's tangential.

Edited 2007-10-22 18:36

Reply Parent Score: 1