Re: No VFS means no FFS?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <Linux-activists@...>
Date: Monday, January 13, 1992 - 12:32 pm

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 03:53:45 +0100
   From: tthorn@daimi.aau.dk

   The current file system has no impressive performance, and
   was hoping the addition of FFS would improve the situation.

Note that a lot of the basic ideas of the FFS can be implemented without
changing the filesystem format....  for example, the idea of having
cylinder groups and allocating blocks trying to make sure that a file is
in one cylinder group.

Of course, you really can't change the 14 char limit without chaging the
filesystem format, although I could think of some really ugly kludges
one could use to make the change in a backward compatible way...

If we're going to redesign the filesystem format, perhaps we should
start making wish lists (keeping in mind that it may not be practical to
implement them all).  My wish list item is per-file ACL's, with
expansion room to handle network-authenticated entities: i.e., Kerberos
principals or X.500 DN's (yeah, right).

						- Ted
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: No VFS means no FFS?, Theodore Ts'o, (Mon Jan 13, 12:32 pm)