EXT4 Is Coming
ah admin writes "A series of patches has been proposed in Linux kernel mailing list earlier by a team of engineers from Red Hat, ClusterFS, IBM and Bull to extend the Ext3 filesystem to add support for very large filesystems. After a long-winded discussion, the developers came forward with a plan to roll these changes into a new version — Ext4."
Interesting bit from wiki/ZFS:
Ext4 is an extention of ext3, much like ext3 is an extention of ext2. The plan is to ensure backwards compatability and sanity for when things break, and with filesystems.. things break.
There are many factors that influence filesystems, not just "how fast it can write", but rather.. how it breaks when it does.
While the fanboys of XFS, JFS, ZFS may promise that their filesystems are faster, had no problems, secure and will not eat your data, it simply is not as proven as ext2 and ext3.
Scream fanboys scream, someone will listen, but the problem is that these filesystems are not proven in the field, or in some circumstances even in the kernel itself.
With a block size of 32 kB (64 kB is expected to be supported soonish) the 48-bit numbers will take you 1 byte over the maximum file size that apps can support. There is no UNIX-like OS that lets an app handle files bigger than 2**63.
We'll need to adjust other things if filesystems ever get so huge. The whole design probably needs a rethink, but we can't do it now. We don't know what the future holds in terms of seek times, transfer rates, sector sizes, etc.
Reiser4 will never be declared stable in the Linux kernel because Hans Reiser refuses to make his code conformant to kernel coding standards. There has been long and wearying discussion of this on the LKML.
There are or were a few quirks.
/boot, you could corrupt XFS.
First off the bat: you can't install the bootloader in a XFS partition since XFS uses the first 512 byte block on the partition. Of course, most people install the bootloader in the MBR but for some it's an issue.
GRUB had a bug with XFS. When you tried to use a XFS partition as
For a considerable period of time, ext3's code was more stable than XFS.
ext3 has an ordered data mode (which is the default). Other journaled file systems only support writeback mode. In general, ordered data mode doesn't provide any better warranty of consistency than writeback mode but does make an important difference for a few special cases but which can make a substancial difference to a desktop user.
Typical annoying case:
- You're editing a file on your favorite text editor and you save it.
- The editor opens the file in overwrite mode, meaning the file is actually deleted and a new one is created (under Linux's default settings, the OS will commit the changes to the metadata in 5 seconds or less and the changes to the data in 30 seconds or less).
- The changes to the metadata are commited to disk.
- The system crashes!
When the system comes back up, the new file is there it's full of garbage.
With ext3's ordered data mode, the contents of the file would have been commited to disk before the associated changes to metadata. It's problable (but not assured!!) that after a crash you'll have either the old version or the new version of the file.