Subject: Re: DEV_B_SIZE
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Steve Byan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/31/2003 15:16:37
On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 02:08 PM, email@example.com wrote:
> I get the sense that you want us to say "NOOOO this is HORRIBLE!!!"
> and you won't stop asking until we do ?
> You won't have that from this bloke at least.
> I don't know what the agenda you push are, but I'm not pushing it
> for you...
I keep getting a response that reads like "we'll detect the larger
block size and run with it". I'm concerned that I'm not being clear
that IDEMA is thinking of proposing a backward-compatibility mode with
the presumption that it will work fine (albeit slowly) with existing
binaries, i.e. code that hasn't been modified to be aware of the larger
If you think there are no functional problems with this
backwards-compatibility scenario, including during recovery (fsck or
journal roll-forward), I'd be happy to hear a clear "no problem".
Steve Byan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
333 South Street
Shrewsbury, MA 01545