Re: Safe File Update (atomic)
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ted Ts'o <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Ah. So performance isn't the problem, it's just hard too implement.
>> Would've been a lot faster if you said that earlier.
> "Too hard to implement" doesn't go far enough. It's also a matter of
> near impossibility to add new features later. BSD FFS didn't get
> ACL's, extended attributes, and many other features ***years*** after
> Linux had them. Complexity is evil; it leads to bugs, makes things
> hard to maintain, and it makes it harder to add new features later.
That was about soft updates. I'm not sure this is just as complex.
I was thinking, doesn't ext have this kind of dependency tracking already?
It has to write the inode after writing the data, otherwise the inode
might point to garbage.
> But hey, if you're so smart, you go ahead and implement them yourself.
> You can demonstrate how you can do it better than everyone else.
> Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time. Complex ideas are not
> valid ones; or at least they certainly aren't good ones.
Nobody said FSs are simple.