Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 21:13 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
John Siracusa, the Mac OS X guru who writes those insanely detailed and well-written Mac OS X reviews for Ars Technica, once told a story about the evolution of the HFS+ file system in Mac OS X - he said it was a struggle between the Mac guys who wanted the features found in BeOS' BFS, and the NEXT guys who didn't really like these features. In the end, the Mac guys won, and over the course of six years, Mac OS X reached feature parity - and a little more - with the BeOS (at the FS level).
Thread beginning with comment 391226
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.
Member since:2005-07-24
but I would have preferred the addressing of concerns like dynamic inode allocation which would have been a nice improvement over ext2/3. It's a very common problem, running out of inodes.
Really? I've never had such a problem. Inodes are generally over-allocated by a very wide margin with the defaults. Even on the multi-user systems I administer. Static allocation has definite advantages when it comes to fsck. When you know where things *should* be, you know better what to do when they don't seem to be where they are supposed to be.
Dynamic inode allocation might seem a good a good idea at the time... in the same sort of way that killing one's wife with a Judo hold might. But I don't think it really pays off in the end.
Edited 2009-10-27 02:05 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Yes they are nice additions, but I would have preferred the addressing of concerns like dynamic inode allocation which would have been a nice improvement over ext2/3. It's a very common problem, running out of inodes. I certainly understand the backwards compatibility reasons for that, but it's a very common and real problem nonetheless.
While I respect the need for backwards compatibility with filesystems and why new filesystems like ZFS often have a tough time, I can't help but feel we're at the end of the line.