Slashdot Mirror


The Hairy State of Linux Filesystems

RazvanM writes "Do the OSes really shrink? Perhaps the user space (MySQL, CUPS) is getting slimmer, but how about the internals? Using as a metric the number of external calls between the filesystem modules and the rest of the Linux kernel I argue that this is not the case. The evidence is a graph that shows the evolution of 15 filesystems from 2.6.11 to 2.6.28 along with the current state (2.6.28) for 24 filesystems. Some filesystems that stand out are: nfs for leading in both number of calls and speed of growth; ext4 and fuse for their above-average speed of growth and 9p for its roller coaster path."

12 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. At least Reiser by Spamhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    got to make one call...

    --
    Everybody Wang-Chung tonight!
    1. Re:At least Reiser by GF678 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Off topic, but just in case anyone is curious as to how Hans Reiser is doing in prison...

      Not particularly well so far: http://www.kcbs.com/pages/3634907.php?

  2. What? by svnt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While OSes may be "sliming down" as the article says, what does the removal of standard db packages from Ubuntu have to do with filesystem-related kernel calls?

    The article doesn't seem to mention the possiblity that more functionality may be pushed into the kernel from userspace, which might make sense in other situations, but I don't think that argument would hold up here.

    I am struggling to make the connection between the summary and the so-called article. The fact that they are not stripping/locking fs functionality means that OSes aren't shrinking? That's the hypothesis?

  3. Re:Do the number of calls really matter? by epiphani · · Score: 5, Informative

    Two things of note with NFS...

    1. NFSv4 support was added. v4 is complex and has a lot of authentication stuff in it that wasn't in v3.

    2. SunRPC is "part" of the NFS tree, but is effectively just a transport layer. It is completely abstracted, hence the numbers of symbols. It could be used for other stuff, so it pushes up that number too.

    --
    .
  4. Where's NTFS ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You are kidding arent you ?

            Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

            That sounds preposterous to me.

            If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.

            Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

            Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.

            I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

    1. Re:Where's NTFS ? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude Microsoft is giving up on NTFS for WinFS with Windows 7.0. Get your facts straight before you start to character assassinate an operating system. WinFS was to be a part of Vista, but Microsoft removed it before the retail version in order to meet deadlines.

      Did you know that Linux has limited NTFS support? I usually have to create a FAT32 partition to copy files between Windows XP and Linux. NTFS is usually read only or not available. Pfffssssttt!

      Just like wine, Microsoft will not release a finished product before its time.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Where's NTFS ? by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you know that Linux has limited NTFS support? I usually have to create a FAT32 partition to copy files between Windows XP and Linux. NTFS is usually read only or not available.

      Have you heard of NTFS-3G?

      The NTFS-3G driver is a freely and commercially available and supported read/write NTFS driver for Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, NetBSD, Solaris, Haiku, and other operating systems. It provides safe and fast handling of the Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 file systems.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    3. Re:Where's NTFS ? by ADRA · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. The AC was a satire. In fact, I remember reading those exact lines at least once before. Its actually quite funny, so props to the original troll for making something really nice to read.

      2. ntfs-3g should be all you need to handle read/writes in Linux these days. I think its nested on top of fuse, so you'll probably need it as well. (Side note, glad Linus finally caved on allowing fuse into his kernel releases)

      3. WinFS is a meta-layer on top of NTFS, so not in itself a disk file-system.

      --
      Bye!
  5. not following by Eil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's your argument here? That filesystem code in the kernel shouldn't be growing more sophisticated over time?

    This rings of the armchair-pundit argument that the kernel is getting more and more "bloated" and a breath later crying out that there still aren't Linux hardware drivers for every computing device ever made.

  6. The state by hkb · · Score: 5, Funny

    The state of Linux filesystems may be in disarray, but it's nothing to kill your wife over...

    *rimshot*

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  7. Re:Do the number of calls really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hi. I'm the infamous Anonymous Coward, and it's time we had a talk.

    For years now, I've been enhancing the discussion on Slashdot through interesting interjections and humorous anecdotes (often about homosexual African Americans), but I feel things just aren't working out.

    It takes me an awful lot of time, researching composing and spell chekcing the many hundreds of valuable posts I make a day, and although I don't request anything in return all I ever see is abuse. You moderate my comments down for absolutely no good reason.

    I've had enough.

    From this point on I'm just not going to bother. It's over.

    I've been feeling this way for a while, slowly I've put less and less effort in my posts, repeating the same ideas over and over and, now, even started repeating whole posts verbatim.

    It's been fun, Slashdot, but I'm disillusioned. You broke my heart, and I am never doing to give you the benefit of my insight again.

    Be happy.
    Love and regrets,
    Anon.

  8. Re:Do the number of calls really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hahaha disregard that! I suck cocks!