3 ms·
On the other hand I can easily imagine lot of applications that don't care about full posix compliance, and are perfectly happy to trade handling of some obscur
by zokier 5y ago
On the other hand I can easily imagine lot of applications that don't care about full posix compliance, and are perfectly happy to trade handling of some obscure feature for improved performance.
- c0balt 5y agoMaybe a viable option for single-application container images. They would on the one side offer the ability to have tight control around used functions (to allow for missing features) but also be able to exactly target an FS and be optimized for it.
- fartattack 5y agoContainers don't control the FS that they're written to. A container image is in the tar format and at runtime the underlying FS is defined by the host, which is why containers only run on hosts with union filesystems
- pengaru 5y agoRenames and hard-links are not obscure features. And there are myriad mount options for tailoring performance vs. crash-resilience/posix-compliance to the application in most the existing production filesystems. Which was honestly another aspect of the talk that was somewhat lacking; what journaling modes were used? barrier/nobarrier? was it even made equivalent to what betrfs achieves? We don't even know if a betrfs instance can successfully mount after a mid-write hard reboot.