Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 17 February 2008, James wrote:
> > Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann <at> tu-clausthal.de>
>
> writes:
> > > > > that is bullshit. If you have ever followed the ml you would
> > > > > now it.
> > > >
> > > > It's been languishing in -mm for ages, never mind any progress
> > > > that namesys itself might make with their own code.
> >
> > Well, I'm no Reiser expert, but a few days ago I was reading at
> > kernel newbies and following some links about the future of the linux
> > kernel, when I stumbled across something that really makes sense
> > concerning why many influential kernel devs do not  like (trust)
> > reiser4fs:
> >
> > That is the style allows for 'loadable' modules (er the nomenclature
> > is plugin) and the resulting fear that if reiser4 is 'blessed' and
> > included into the linux kernel, then those with advanced knowledge
> > could write very specific modules (of the commercial kind) for niche
> > feature that just plug into reiser4fs.
>
> A further HUGE objection is the extreme difficulty in writing an fsck
> for such a filesystem.


two weeks ago I had a screw-up in my reiser4-based /var.

fsck.reiser4 fixed it nicely.

Since the fsck is already there -what is your argument again?

> Don't get me wrong, Hans' ideas for reiser4 are extremely
> forward-thinking and possibly very useful and valuable. Imagine the
> possibilities - the user could tune the filesystem to do whatever he
> needed, plug in modules optimized for the data the user is using, even
> in ways that namesys never predicted. WinFS could actually happen, just
> not on Windows <evil grin>
>
> However, not at the expense of existing deployments and methods. An fsck
> is an absolute requirement for Linux's largest user-base on something
> with the scope of reiser4.

so we should all be happy that the fsck is there and works.

-- 
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list