From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422733AbWG2KU4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jul 2006 06:20:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422736AbWG2KU4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jul 2006 06:20:56 -0400 Received: from thebsh.namesys.com ([212.16.7.65]:445 "HELO thebsh.namesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1422733AbWG2KU4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jul 2006 06:20:56 -0400 Message-ID: <44CAD3FF.8060203@namesys.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:20:31 -0600 From: Hans Reiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Garzik CC: David Masover , Linus Torvalds , "Horst H. von Brand" , Andrew Morton , Theodore Tso , LKML , ReiserFS List Subject: Re: metadata plugins (was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion) References: <200607281402.k6SE245v004715@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <44CA31D2.70203@slaphack.com> <44C9FB93.9040201@namesys.com> <44CA6905.4050002@slaphack.com> <44CA126C.7050403@namesys.com> <44CA98F9.1040900@garzik.org> In-Reply-To: <44CA98F9.1040900@garzik.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Using guilt as an argument in a technical discussion is a flashing red > sign that says "I have no technical rebuttal" Wow, that is really nervy. Let's recap this all: * reiser4 has a 2x performance advantage over the next fastest FS (ext3), and when compression ships in a month that will double again as well as save space. See http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks.html, and then ask the reiserfs-list@namesys.com whether those benchmarks are fair representations of their experiences. This is in a field where a 25% advantage is a hard won big deal. * we described our plugin architecture in 2001. No other FS developers were interested, only the users were, and it was presented quite a lot. * So we implemented plugins for ourselves, because no other FS developers would possibly have supported us touching their code. (I do not say that they erred in this.) * No one has actually made a serious case for it being genericizable when you get to the details, it is all just handwaving. I'd be surprised if >10% of it was FS independent, and unsurprised if making that 10% FS independent made the code ossified and hard to maintain. I do not in anyway claim that those who choose to implement Reiser4 plugins are not deeply affected by Reiser4 design choices. Most of the value of writing Reiser4 plugins comes from being able to reuse Reiser4 code as you choose to in the process, and if Reiser4 is not to your taste as a whole, then nobody should impose our plugins upon you. VFS is a bad enough straight jacket for FS developers, we don't need even more mandated design decisions for the FS developers to come who will be brighter than us. Actually, I would like to see Nate Diller implement a competing VFS layer, I think he would do a very good job of that. * Here we are today, and Reiser4 plugins work. Now some say that because we did it for Reiser4 and not for every other FS, that we should be excluded from the kernel. So we are supposed to re-implement it as generic code, which will involve years of time, and then finally something will be coded and nobody but us will use it, and then they will tell us that because nobody but us wants to use it it cannot go in. If you disagree, find one ext3 developer who wants to rewrite ext3 to use plugins and change its disk format to do it. And you have the nerve to say that this ever was a technical discussion? Our code measurably works the best. If folks want to imitate it, go ahead, but don't blame us for making our code work without first making those other folks's code work. The technical rebuttal you ask for is http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks.html. The only time this argument gets technical is when akpm is involved. He was right about what should technically be done about batch write, which, by the way, was greeted upon completion with an if only reiser4 uses it then it should not go in response. We are being penalized for thinking too differently, and this whole ping-pong between "no we don't want to do it your way" and "you did it your way for only you, redo it for us even though we won't ever use it" and "oh, you redid it for us but none of us want to use it, so no it is an imposition and cannot go in" is the Kafka-esque manifestation of that. If only reiser4 wants to use something, then just let us do it in our little corner without bothering anybody else. (Though any advice from akpm that he has time for giving us is always welcome.) David, we aren't asking to be in the band, we are asking to be in the jukebox. I think enough users want to go 2x as fast that the users would benefit from our being in the jukebox. Hans