By: Mark Christiansen (aliasundercover.delete@this.nothereeither.com), January 27, 2009 1:17 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) on 1/27/09 wrote:
But then do the extended attributes need their own extended attributes?
I first thought about all this reading how Next handled things like the icons for an application. Their desktop software would look in directories and understood where to find the executable, icons and other associated resources in ordinary files. It all seemed very clever, to fit well in the Unix tradition.
One thing it doesn't do is automagically support old unaware applications which look to just open a file. Presented with a directory instead they would simply fail not knowing the protocol for which file in that directory is the default data. Or perhaps they messed with the meaning of file opens at the library level to give awareness to many old programs with minimal source changes, I never actually used a Next.
Naive programs could be served and arbitrary attachments to any file could be supported by turning every file optionally into both a file and a directory. Do an open and read/write to the file and you get a plain old byte stream. Open it as a directory and you get the listing of its member files and subdirectories. That listing may well be empty for a plain old file with no decoration. Inside the files and subdirectories are all just the same, each may or may not have a stream of bytes, each may or may not have named nodes farther down the tree. Copy would be a plain old recursive copy. At the top level one can understand the whole as one thing, internally complicated but just one thing none the less.
What would you do with it? It would make attaching other stuff to a file easy. A lot of the wish for extended attributes amounts to wanting to attach things to a file and have them stay with that file without affecting the other software which also uses the file.
There is always a snake and I can spot two right up front though there are probably more. One is using this for security purposes would introduce enormous complication as permission to mess with those security tags would necessarily be different from accessing and changing the ordinary data. The other snake is coordinating names, different independent efforts to attach useful data to files would need to not collide in their choice of file names. That is I think a much easier problem.
Why not just use the system as is with explicit directories and forgo this idea of every file is a directory and every directory is a file? Well, yes, that is what I expect will happen. Still, it would be nice to have a simple uniform way to attach information to files and have it stay stuck. People keep coming back to extended attributes because they want this. If for some reason you want attributes for the attributes for the attributes it all just works, no special cases.
Ideas are of course cheap and no doubt others have thought of this too.
But then do the extended attributes need their own extended attributes?
I first thought about all this reading how Next handled things like the icons for an application. Their desktop software would look in directories and understood where to find the executable, icons and other associated resources in ordinary files. It all seemed very clever, to fit well in the Unix tradition.
One thing it doesn't do is automagically support old unaware applications which look to just open a file. Presented with a directory instead they would simply fail not knowing the protocol for which file in that directory is the default data. Or perhaps they messed with the meaning of file opens at the library level to give awareness to many old programs with minimal source changes, I never actually used a Next.
Naive programs could be served and arbitrary attachments to any file could be supported by turning every file optionally into both a file and a directory. Do an open and read/write to the file and you get a plain old byte stream. Open it as a directory and you get the listing of its member files and subdirectories. That listing may well be empty for a plain old file with no decoration. Inside the files and subdirectories are all just the same, each may or may not have a stream of bytes, each may or may not have named nodes farther down the tree. Copy would be a plain old recursive copy. At the top level one can understand the whole as one thing, internally complicated but just one thing none the less.
What would you do with it? It would make attaching other stuff to a file easy. A lot of the wish for extended attributes amounts to wanting to attach things to a file and have them stay with that file without affecting the other software which also uses the file.
There is always a snake and I can spot two right up front though there are probably more. One is using this for security purposes would introduce enormous complication as permission to mess with those security tags would necessarily be different from accessing and changing the ordinary data. The other snake is coordinating names, different independent efforts to attach useful data to files would need to not collide in their choice of file names. That is I think a much easier problem.
Why not just use the system as is with explicit directories and forgo this idea of every file is a directory and every directory is a file? Well, yes, that is what I expect will happen. Still, it would be nice to have a simple uniform way to attach information to files and have it stay stuck. People keep coming back to extended attributes because they want this. If for some reason you want attributes for the attributes for the attributes it all just works, no special cases.
Ideas are of course cheap and no doubt others have thought of this too.
| Topic | Posted By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Michael S | 2008/08/19 09:54 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/19 12:42 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Apink | 2008/08/19 04:49 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/19 05:28 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 08:49 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:10 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 05:42 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 06:12 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 08:45 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:12 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:15 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 01:59 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Anders Jensen | 2008/08/20 02:26 AM |
| +SSD | Anders Jensen | 2008/08/20 02:30 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 10:04 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | slacker | 2008/08/20 11:35 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/20 06:54 PM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 07:58 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | David Kanter | 2008/08/21 12:16 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/08/21 05:25 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/21 05:32 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/21 07:39 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 08:07 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/21 08:52 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 09:35 AM |
| OLTP appliance = mainframe? (NT) | Potatoswatter | 2008/08/21 10:44 AM |
| OLTP appliance = HP NonStop? | Michael S | 2008/08/21 11:03 AM |
| OLTP appliance | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:33 PM |
| OLTP appliance | Potatoswatter | 2008/08/21 02:59 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:29 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Dan Downs | 2008/08/21 10:33 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2008/08/21 11:45 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Dan Downs | 2008/08/22 07:21 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:34 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC vs DRAM | pgerassi | 2008/08/21 11:24 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC vs DRAM | David Kanter | 2008/08/22 12:31 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Groo | 2008/08/23 11:52 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/21 05:14 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/22 07:05 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/22 01:27 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/08/22 05:26 PM |
| SSD Controller differentiation | David Kanter | 2008/08/22 08:35 PM |
| SSD Controller differentiation | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/22 09:34 PM |
| SSD Controller differentiation (supercaps, cost...) | anon | 2008/08/23 09:18 AM |
| SSD Controller differentiation (supercaps, cost...) | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/23 09:40 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/23 09:50 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/08 11:03 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/08 12:51 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/08 08:04 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/08 09:29 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/08 11:12 PM |
| RAM vs SSD? | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/09 12:06 AM |
| RAM vs SSD? | Max | 2008/09/12 11:51 AM |
| RAM vs SSD? | EduardoS | 2008/09/12 03:27 PM |
| Disk cache snapshotting | Max | 2008/09/13 07:34 AM |
| Disk cache snapshotting | Howard Chu | 2008/09/14 08:58 PM |
| Disk cache snapshotting | Max | 2008/09/15 11:50 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/09 06:43 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/09 08:42 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/09 09:39 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/09 11:29 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2008/09/10 01:51 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 02:09 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/10 03:48 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 04:52 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/10 05:28 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/10 05:21 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:17 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2008/09/10 05:29 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:23 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/10 09:45 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/10 06:25 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:54 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/10 09:31 AM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | Max | 2008/09/11 06:35 AM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 08:06 AM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 08:48 AM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 10:39 AM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | Mark Roulo | 2008/09/11 11:18 AM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:59 PM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 06:16 PM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 09:28 PM |
| Physical vs effective write latency | MS | 2009/02/03 02:06 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/11 11:39 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/11 12:17 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/11 04:25 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:47 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | rwessel | 2008/09/11 05:01 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/11 11:00 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/12 07:52 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/13 09:06 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Ungo | 2008/09/15 11:18 AM |
| To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | David Kanter | 2008/09/22 12:12 AM |
| To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | Howard Chu | 2008/09/22 03:02 AM |
| To SSD or not? Real data.. | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/22 06:33 AM |
| To SSD or not? Real data.. | Ungo | 2008/09/22 11:27 AM |
| 4K sectors | Wes Felter | 2008/09/22 05:03 PM |
| 4K sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/22 09:31 PM |
| Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/22 08:38 PM |
| Reasons for >512 byte sectors | rwessel | 2008/09/22 09:09 PM |
| Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Howard Chu | 2008/09/23 01:50 AM |
| Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/22 09:40 PM |
| Reasons for >512 byte sectors | rwessel | 2008/09/23 08:11 AM |
| Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/23 11:10 AM |
| HDD long sector size availability | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/09/23 04:32 AM |
| HDD long sector size availability | rwessel | 2008/09/23 08:19 AM |
| HDD long sector size availability | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/09/23 01:17 PM |
| To SSD or not? Real data.. | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/22 10:16 PM |
| To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | Wes Felter | 2008/09/22 10:25 AM |
| How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Rob Thorpe | 2008/09/22 01:01 PM |
| How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Matt Craighead | 2008/09/23 05:59 PM |
| How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/24 03:17 AM |
| ATA/SCSIS, Write Flushes and Asych Filesystems | TruePath | 2009/01/25 03:44 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Michael S | 2008/09/12 03:58 AM |
| overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/12 03:59 AM |
| overlapped erase and read | David W. Hess | 2008/09/12 08:56 AM |
| overlapped erase and read | Anonymous | 2008/09/12 07:45 PM |
| overlapped erase and read | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/12 10:56 PM |
| overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/13 10:29 AM |
| overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/13 11:09 AM |
| overlapped erase and read | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/13 01:05 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:31 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/09/08 01:07 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/08 01:30 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/09/08 03:01 PM |
| SSD and RAID | Joe Chang | 2008/09/08 06:42 PM |
| SSD and RAID | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/08 08:46 PM |
| SSD and RAID | Aaron Spink | 2008/09/09 03:27 PM |
| SSD and RAID | Groo | 2008/09/10 12:02 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 09:22 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 01:04 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 02:24 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 03:47 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | anonymous | 2009/01/06 04:17 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 04:58 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:35 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 04:45 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 05:09 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 06:47 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:26 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2009/01/06 07:23 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:52 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2009/01/07 01:34 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | IntelUser2000 | 2009/01/07 06:43 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/07 09:28 AM |
| drop data filesystem semantic | Doug Siebert | 2009/01/09 11:21 AM |
| FTL and FS | iz | 2009/01/09 06:49 PM |
| FTL and FS | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/09 08:53 PM |
| FTL and FS | iz | 2009/01/10 01:09 AM |
| FTL and FS | Michael S | 2009/01/10 02:19 PM |
| compiling large programs | iz | 2009/01/10 04:51 PM |
| compiling large programs | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/10 06:58 PM |
| compiling large programs | peter | 2009/01/11 04:30 AM |
| compiling large programs | Andi Kleen | 2009/01/11 12:03 PM |
| The File Abstraction | TruePath | 2009/01/25 05:45 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/25 12:49 PM |
| The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 08:23 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Michael S | 2009/01/26 12:39 PM |
| The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 01:31 PM |
| The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/26 02:06 PM |
| The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 03:29 PM |
| The File Abstraction | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 08:24 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 09:14 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/27 09:15 AM |
| The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/27 10:20 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/27 12:16 PM |
| Attributes All The Way Down | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 01:17 PM |
| The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/27 04:25 PM |
| The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/28 07:17 AM |
| The File Abstraction: API thoughts | Carlie Coats | 2009/01/28 08:35 AM |
| The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/28 09:09 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/28 12:44 PM |
| Programs already 'hide' their metadata in the bytestream, unbeknownst to users | anon | 2009/01/28 08:28 PM |
| The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/29 09:39 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/29 10:08 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/29 10:49 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/29 01:58 PM |
| The File Abstraction | rwessel | 2009/01/29 03:23 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/29 02:05 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | stubar | 2009/01/29 03:49 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/29 04:15 PM |
| Like Duh | anon | 2009/01/29 06:42 PM |
| Like Duh | anon | 2009/01/29 08:15 PM |
| Like Duh | anon | 2009/02/01 06:18 PM |
| Double Duh. | Anonymous | 2009/02/01 09:58 PM |
| Double Duh. | anon | 2009/02/02 01:08 AM |
| Double Duh. | Anonymous | 2009/02/02 04:11 PM |
| Double Duh. | anon | 2009/02/02 06:33 PM |
| Like Duh | David Kanter | 2009/02/01 10:05 PM |
| Like Duh | peter | 2009/02/01 10:55 PM |
| Like Duh | anon | 2009/02/02 12:55 AM |
| Xattrs, Solar power, regulation and politics | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/02 03:36 AM |
| Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | hobold | 2009/02/02 05:14 AM |
| Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | rwessel | 2009/02/02 11:33 AM |
| good summary | Michael S | 2009/02/03 01:41 AM |
| good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 08:57 AM |
| good summary | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 09:21 AM |
| good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 10:18 AM |
| good summary | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 11:00 AM |
| good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 11:36 AM |
| good summary | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 09:39 PM |
| good summary | rwessel | 2009/02/03 10:03 PM |
| good summary | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 10:46 PM |
| Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | slacker | 2009/02/04 04:06 PM |
| Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Michael S | 2009/02/05 12:05 AM |
| Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Ungo | 2009/02/05 12:15 PM |
| Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | slacker | 2009/02/05 01:19 PM |
| Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Howard Chu | 2009/02/05 03:44 PM |
| Like Duh | iz | 2009/01/30 01:03 AM |
| EAs (security labels) hosed me badly | anon | 2009/01/30 08:48 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | RagingDragon | 2009/01/29 08:31 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | anonymous | 2009/01/29 07:13 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/29 08:38 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/30 10:24 AM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/30 04:50 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Etienne Lehnart | 2009/01/29 11:22 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Rob Thorpe | 2009/01/30 11:39 AM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/30 12:16 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/30 05:03 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/30 10:22 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | rwessel | 2009/01/30 11:08 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | anonymous | 2009/01/30 11:22 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | rwessel | 2009/01/30 11:56 PM |
| Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/01/31 08:04 AM |
| Scaling | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/02 01:39 AM |
| Scaling | rwessel | 2009/02/02 10:41 AM |
| Scaling | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 11:30 AM |
| Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/02/02 01:27 PM |
| Scaling | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/03 04:08 AM |
| Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/02/03 06:38 AM |
| Scaling | rwessel | 2009/02/03 01:34 PM |
| Scaling | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 09:46 PM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 10:27 AM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 11:03 AM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 11:17 AM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 10:00 PM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | Michael S | 2009/02/04 05:46 AM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | RagingDragon | 2009/02/04 08:33 PM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | Dean Kent | 2009/02/03 11:17 AM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 11:24 AM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/04 09:43 AM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | rwessel | 2009/02/03 01:44 PM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | anon | 2009/02/04 01:35 AM |
| in defense of software that does not scale | Carlie Coats | 2009/02/04 04:24 AM |
| Scaling with time vs. scaling from the beginning. | mpx | 2009/02/05 12:57 AM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Michael S | 2009/01/31 09:33 AM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/31 09:37 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | JasonB | 2009/01/31 07:11 AM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/31 10:43 AM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | JasonB | 2009/01/31 03:37 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 01:42 PM |
| Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 01:44 PM |
| The File Abstraction | Rob Thorpe | 2009/01/27 10:20 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/26 11:28 PM |
| The File Abstraction | Michael S | 2009/01/27 02:00 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/27 07:30 AM |
| The File Abstraction | Andi Kleen | 2009/01/27 01:05 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Michel | 2009/01/12 05:54 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/12 06:38 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/12 11:52 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Ungo | 2009/01/13 02:04 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Wes Felter | 2009/01/13 04:42 PM |
| SLC vs. MLC | TruePath | 2009/01/25 04:05 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Ungo | 2008/08/21 11:54 AM |
| SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:20 PM |
| MLC vs. SLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 07:57 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 09:40 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 02:18 AM |
| First Dunnington benchmark results | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/08/20 03:38 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/19 09:10 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Jesper Frimann | 2008/08/19 11:28 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/20 02:42 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | David Kanter | 2008/08/21 12:13 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 05:54 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | asdf | 2008/08/22 12:18 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/22 06:54 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Jesper Frimann | 2008/08/22 08:48 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/24 12:06 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/24 03:19 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/24 08:30 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Paul | 2008/08/24 10:16 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/24 11:37 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/24 11:53 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/22 09:19 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | aaron spink | 2008/08/23 01:56 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/23 08:58 AM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 12:51 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 12:55 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/23 03:52 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | anonymous | 2008/08/23 04:28 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/23 05:12 PM |
| Off road and topic | EduardoS | 2008/08/23 05:28 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 05:26 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/23 08:40 PM |
| Will x86 dominate big iron? | anonymous | 2008/08/24 12:46 AM |
| Off road and topic | David W. Hess | 2008/08/24 02:24 AM |
| Off road and topic | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/24 03:14 AM |
| Beckton vs. Dunnington | Mr. Camel | 2008/08/22 05:30 AM |
| Beckton vs. Dunnington | jokerman | 2008/08/22 11:12 AM |
| Beckton vs. Dunnington | Mr. Camel | 2009/05/29 09:16 AM |