From: "Amir G." Subject: Re: Introducing Next3 - built-in snapshots support for Ext3 Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 07:43:22 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20100504224226.GE6344@thunk.org> <87vdaz21b0.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4BE4855E.40808@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andi Kleen , tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Ric Wheeler Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:61977 "EHLO mail-bw0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751156Ab0EHFnY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2010 01:43:24 -0400 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so912916bwz.21 for ; Fri, 07 May 2010 22:43:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BE4855E.40808@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 05/07/2010 03:22 PM, Amir G. wrote: >> >> In theory, it is possible to have 2 modes for Ext4 (extents or snaps= hots) >> and some would argue that it makes sense to do that. >> But I think that making that decision can be deferred to a later tim= e, >> after people have experienced with Next3 and have decided if they >> would like to have >> the snapshot feature merged into Ext4 or not. >> >> Besides, it would take me a considerable amount of time to merge the >> snapshot feature into Ext4, >> and Next3 is ready to be used now. >> >> Amir. >> -- >> > > I think that the counter argument would be that moving features into = ext3 is > probably the wrong thing to do. > > I don't think that anyone is in a huge hurry given that we have LVM b= ased > snapshots with ext3 and btrfs snapshots around the corner. =A0Probabl= y this is > most interesting when done to the latest version of the ext family. > This is a valid argument, but it is important for me to clarify a few issues regarding the statements above: 1. No features are added to Ext3, so there is no concern for the stability of Ext3. The feature is added as a new f/s, with the slight overhead of duplicate code in the kernel tree and an extra loadable module in the system. 2. From the user's point of view, there is not much difference between "mount -t next3" and "mount -t ext4 -o snapshots", because in both cases it would not be possible to mount ext4 with extents support on that volume before discarding snapsh= ots and it will be possible to mount ext4 with extents support after discarding snapshots. 3. Next3 snapshots are much more scalable durable and efficient than LVM snapshots. These are some of the benefits of built-in snapshots support. 4. I do not want to restart the discussion about when btrfs will be production ready. As for Next3 stability, I think that with the help of the community, Next3 can be production ready within a matter of months, because the Next3 code religiously attempts to retain the stability of its ancestor Ext3. I dare you to prove me wrong ;-) Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html