DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2004-01
Re: Background fsck
Dan Melomedman wrote:
Gary Thorpe wrote:
I have also heard of problems with stability/data loss, but I didn't
want to comment because I have never really tried it (or any of Linux's
journaling options). This is another major issue with ReiserFS: it looks
nice on paper but does it deliver? If it doesn't, there is not much
point in trying to use it.
I think ext3 would be easiest (ext2 is already available across the
BSD's), but not technically the best. I think ReiserFS wants to grow
into a database or some unified name space so..... What I would be
interested to know if implementing some of them under a BSD license
might peeve the original owners?
Can't do it with ReiserFS (License? Documentation?) since they want to
be paid to port it. They also want to be paid twenty-five dollars to ask
them a question. They are full of it. It took them many developers and
years to get where they are now, and their attitude towards stability
issues is known to be "Oh, you made a back up, right?". They do use very
novel ideas though obviously. It's great to be able to have scalable
directories (millions of files). Email servers wouldn't need directory
splits for their queues with this feature among many other uses.
These deliver (i.e. have been proven on at lest the original platforms),
but with these and ReiserFS I would expect resistance to a BSD-licensed
implementation. Whether it would be anything more than a philosophical
objection is something a lawyer would have to look into.
As someone else pointed out, I was more inclined towards using the GPLed
versions of these file systems to generate specs and reimplement them
for BSD. The problem with ext2/ext3/FFS is that the way they work is not
the most modern: newer file systems can allocate inodes on demand,
support extents, large directories, dynamic resizing (both increases and
decreases in size), and faster operation (this is debatable for
single-user systems). So in my thinking it would be nice to improve on
all of these things if you are developing/porting a new file system.
But since ext2 has a BSD implementation and ext3 is based on ext2, this
should be the easiest route. I have also read that the journaling
implementation for ext3 is applicable to other file systems, so
implementing it may make journaling for FFS possible as well (I think
Sun and Apple already have implemented journaling/logging for FFS in
Solaris and MacOS X respectively?).
But there are also XFS and JFS to consider. Both are probably GPL