2000-11-03 14:53:52

by Michael Boman

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

Hi Gurus,

I was trying to build a super-big kernel with allot of Journaling File
System inside it to try out what is best for us to use. Now, I
encountered a problem..

It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that
is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be
fs/ext3, no?

Anyway, just my thought... It might already been discussed for what I
know..

BTW.. If you find time to reply on this post, please put me on the Cc:
line - I am not on the mailinglist, generates too much mail I have no
time to read...

Best regards
Michael Boman

PS
I was using 2.2.17 as base for my patches..
DS

--
Pager : out of order | On the contrary of what you may
Mobile: (+65) 98 55 17 34 | think, your hacker is fully aware
eMail : [email protected] | of your company's dress code. He
ICQ : 5566009 | is fully aware of the fact that it
Handle: proxy / 11 Alliance | doesn't help him to do his job.


2000-11-03 15:38:02

by Alan Cox

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

> It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that
> is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be
> fs/ext3, no?

fs/jfs is the general purpose journalling layer. Of course while thats very
sensible it does clash with the ibm jfs. Maybe fs/journalling is needed ?



2000-11-03 17:26:29

by Andreas Dilger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

Michael Boman writes:
> It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that
> is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be
> fs/ext3, no?

Actually, if you would look in linux/fs, you will see that ext3 IS in
linux/fs/ext3. However, there is a second component to ext3, which is
a generic block journalling layer which is called jfs. This journal
layer is designed so that it isn't ext3 specific, so it would be
_possible_ for other journalling filesystems to use it. Whether non-ext3
filesystems will actually use it is another question (actually the
InterMezzo distributed filesystem uses the ext3-jfs functionality to
do compound transactions on disk to ensure cluster coherency).

I think that Stephen at one time said he would change the name, but I
guess he has not done so yet.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert

2000-11-03 17:31:29

by Andrea Arcangeli

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 03:38:56PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> [..] while thats very
> sensible [..]

Not that it matters much but jfs means "journalling filesystem" and fs/jfs
isn't a filesystem in the ext3 patch, so it doesn't look that sensible to me.

Andrea

2000-11-03 19:34:11

by H. Peter Anvin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: Andreas Dilger <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Michael Boman writes:
> > It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that
> > is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be
> > fs/ext3, no?
>
> Actually, if you would look in linux/fs, you will see that ext3 IS in
> linux/fs/ext3. However, there is a second component to ext3, which is
> a generic block journalling layer which is called jfs. This journal
> layer is designed so that it isn't ext3 specific, so it would be
> _possible_ for other journalling filesystems to use it. Whether non-ext3
> filesystems will actually use it is another question (actually the
> InterMezzo distributed filesystem uses the ext3-jfs functionality to
> do compound transactions on disk to ensure cluster coherency).
>
> I think that Stephen at one time said he would change the name, but I
> guess he has not done so yet.
>

How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as
"journal" or "jfsl" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?)

-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt

2000-11-05 01:46:49

by Dominik Kubla

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:33:10AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as
> "journal" or "jfsl" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?)
>

Why? I'd rather rename IBM's jfs to ibmjfs and be done with it.

Yours,
Dominik Kubla
--
http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html - No Software Patents In Europe!

2000-11-05 02:49:34

by H. Peter Anvin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

Dominik Kubla wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:33:10AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as
> > "journal" or "jfsl" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?)
> >
>
> Why? I'd rather rename IBM's jfs to ibmjfs and be done with it.
>
> Yours,
> Dominik Kubla
>

Because -fs is usually used by filesystems itself. Since the journaling
layer doesn't really have a publically visible name, it's easy to change.

-hpa

--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt

2000-11-05 02:54:25

by Albert D. Cahalan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

Dominik Kubla writes:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:33:10AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

[about IBM's JFS and ext3 both wanting to put code in fs/jfs]

>> How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as
>> "journal" or "jfsl" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?)
>
> Why? I'd rather rename IBM's jfs to ibmjfs and be done with it.

jfs == Journalling File System

The journalling layer for ext3 is not a filesystem by itself.
It is generic journalling code. So, even if IBM did not have
any jfs code, the name would be wrong.

IBM ought to change their name too, because the code they ported
can not mount AIX's current filesystems. An appropriate name
would be jfs2 or os2jfs, to distinguish it from the original.
If the AIX filesystem is ever implemented for Linux, then that
code can get the jfs name.

2000-11-05 10:49:55

by James A Sutherland

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

> Dominik Kubla writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:33:10AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> [about IBM's JFS and ext3 both wanting to put code in fs/jfs]
>
> >> How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as
> >> "journal" or "jfsl" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?)
> >
> > Why? I'd rather rename IBM's jfs to ibmjfs and be done with it.
>
> jfs == Journalling File System
>
> The journalling layer for ext3 is not a filesystem by itself.
> It is generic journalling code. So, even if IBM did not have
> any jfs code, the name would be wrong.
>
> IBM ought to change their name too, because the code they ported
> can not mount AIX's current filesystems. An appropriate name
> would be jfs2 or os2jfs, to distinguish it from the original.
> If the AIX filesystem is ever implemented for Linux, then that
> code can get the jfs name.

How about "Journalling Support Layer (JSL)"?

How different is AIX's JFS from OS/2's? Is there any possibility of the
current code being able to handle AIX filesystems as well, or is it a
different system entirely? If the latter, I'd agree with something like
"os2jfs".


James.

2000-11-05 12:39:55

by Dominik Kubla

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 06:48:47PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Because -fs is usually used by filesystems itself. Since the journaling
> layer doesn't really have a publically visible name, it's easy to change.

Oh i understood that fine. But VFS = "virtual filesystem switch" is also
not a filesystem per se. And why give the generic term to an IBM "product"?
So i say leave jfs for generic code and call the IBM jfs "ibmjfs".

Just my 2 cents,
Dominik Kubla
--
http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html - No Software Patents In Europe!

2000-11-06 11:56:38

by Stephen C. Tweedie

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 09:53:41PM -0500, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> The journalling layer for ext3 is not a filesystem by itself.
> It is generic journalling code. So, even if IBM did not have
> any jfs code, the name would be wrong.

Indeed, and the jfs layer will be renamed "jbd" at some point (for
"journaling block device" support).

Cheers,
Stephen