From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p68L7hJD006408 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:07:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] remove filestreams support? From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20110705110127.GA27102@infradead.org> References: <20110704153443.GA21501@infradead.org> <20110705015458.GZ561@dastard> <20110705110127.GA27102@infradead.org> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:07:39 -0500 Message-ID: <1310159259.3024.63.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 07:01 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 11:54:58AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > So rather than deprecating the functionality, perhaps we should look > > at implementing it through a simpler, more generic, better > > integrated interface? That will increase the usefulness of the > > functionality for a much wider audience than it has now, and also > > provide the virt/blk throttling folk with exactly the "don't cross > > the streams" functionality they suggest filesystems are unable to > > support easily..... > > That does indeed sound simpler, and also more useful. Do the users > who have chimed in here (and off list) think such a scheme would be > useful for them? We have customers that make good use of filestreams. I don't think it matters whether they use CXFS or XFS, it's a very useful allocation strategy, and an important feature for certain applications. I like the idea of generalizing it and/or improving its interface though. -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs