Linked by John Finigan on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 310915
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by agrouf
by sbergman27 on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 20:45
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by agrouf"
Yes, I hope this turns out as well, since it seems to bypass some of the MD and LVM cruft.
Not so much "bypassing" as "working more closely with":
http://lwn.net/Articles/265533/
The article to which the linked comment by Chris Mason is attached is also worth a read for anyone interested in btrfs:
http://lwn.net/Articles/265257/
Edited 2008-04-22 20:47 UTC




Member since:
2006-01-19
Ext4 is just a 'let's be pragmatic' solution: we need something better than Ext3.
I hope you are right. To be clear, I think ext4 could turn out to be an excellent incremental improvement.
Yes, I hope this turns out as well, since it seems to bypass some of the MD and LVM cruft. What I find interesting about BTRFS is that it is an Oracle project, and yet better storage for unstructured data is not really in Oracle's interest--what they would like is to get your unstructured data into their db.
Note: Not a conspiracy theory! I just think it is unusual.
Also, what weeman said