Subject: Re: as long as we're hitting FFS...
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Alex Barclay <email@example.com>
Date: 03/23/1999 17:34:49
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> I don't know how serious a loss it would be, but it'd be a (In my opinion)
> needless performance loss. Why make half of our architectures always swap
> when we don't have to? FS's, as opposed to network protocols, don't move
> from machine to machine much. Sure, crashed disks, and floppies, do. But
> most of the time an FS will stay on the machine on which it was made
> (won't it?). So why optimize for the multi-machine case (fixed, universal
> endianness) when fs movement is rare?
If you take a look at the CORBA 2.0 IP transport IIOP it takes the view
of letting the receiver work out the endianness. This gives a gain in
a network of same achitecture machines. You only convert when you
have to. I think this is how filesystems should be.