Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754162AbZC3N5l (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:57:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752269AbZC3N5U (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:57:20 -0400 Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:42235 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753335AbZC3N5T (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:57:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:55:52 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Mark Lord , Stefan Richter , Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , Matthew Garrett , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , David Rees , Jesper Krogh , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29 Message-ID: <20090330135552.GF13356@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Mark Lord , Stefan Richter , Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , Matthew Garrett , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , David Rees , Jesper Krogh , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <49CD7B10.7010601@garzik.org> <49CD891A.7030103@rtr.ca> <49CD9047.4060500@garzik.org> <49CE2633.2000903@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <49CE3186.8090903@garzik.org> <49CE35AE.1080702@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <49CE3F74.6090103@rtr.ca> <20090329231451.GR26138@disturbed> <20090330003948.GA13356@mit.edu> <20090330063110.GS26138@disturbed> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090330063110.GS26138@disturbed> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2379 Lines: 46 On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 05:31:10PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Pardon my french, but that is a fucking joke. > > You are making a judgement call that one application is more > important than another application and trying to impose that on > everyone. You are saying that we should perturb a well designed and > written backup application that is embedded into critical scripts > all around the world for the sake of desktop application that has > developers that are too fucking lazy to fix their bugs. You are welcome to argue with the desktop application writers (and Linus, who has sided with them). I *knew* this was a fight I was not going to win, so I implemented the replace-via-rename workaround, even before I started trying to convince applicaiton writers that they should write more portable code that would be safe on filesystems such as, say, XFS. And it looks like we're losing that battle as well; it's hard to get people to write correct, portable code! (I *told* the application writers that I was the moderate on this one, even as they were flaming me to a crisp. Given that I'm taking flak from both sides, it's to me a good indication that the design choices made for ext4 was probably the right thing.) > If you want to trade rsync performance for desktop performance, do > it in the filesystem that is aimed at the desktop. Don't fuck rename > up for filesystems that are aimed at the server market and don't > want to implement performance sucking hacks to work around fucked up > desktop applications. What I did was create a mount option for system administrators interested in the server market. And an rsync option that unlinks the target filesystem first really isn't that big of a deal --- have you seen how many options rsync already has? It's been a running joke with the rsync developers. :-) If XFS doesn't want to try to support the desktop market, that's fine --- it's your choice. But at least as far as desktop application programmers, this is not a fight we're going to win. It makes me sad, but I'm enough of a realist to understand that. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/