Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:05:39 +0000 From: "Joao Barros" <joao.barros@gmail.com> To: "Robert Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support Message-ID: <70e8236f0802071005w7a52923w94be1f35917055d5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080207171913.M96200@fledge.watson.org> References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <47AAFDED.9030301@freebsd.org> <47AB05A1.7010803@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10802070613mf2bf3feg5dcb480501fcfbbc@mail.gmail.com> <20080207171913.M96200@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 7, 2008 5:20 PM, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Attilio Rao wrote: > > > 2008/2/7, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>: > > > >> Eric Anderson wrote: > >>> I think Alfred's point is really interesting. How many people that don't > >>> use it that say 'axe it' does it take to override 1 person saying 'keep > >>> it!'? > >> > >> The real question is how many people does it take to say 'I'll maintain > >> it'? Just one. Without it, it will only bitrot as evidenced by Attilios > >> question. NTFS is currently broken, just not as obvious because WITNESS > >> didn't track and enforce lockmgr locks. > > > > Andre catched exactly my point. The big problem is that we have a list of > > several unmaintained fs. NTFS is in this list. The support is not reliable, > > it is only available in read mode and eventually bugged. I'm not sure I want > > to keep this if nobody wants to maintain it. > > If you axe write support, does the maintainability of the kernel ntfs get > easier? As I understand it, the write support is rather limited, and If I recall correctly ntfs volumes are mounted readonly by default (I'm unable to verify now). > debugging and fixing read support is generally a lot easier for a variety of > reasons. There's also a lot less risk to data. :-) I think it's reasonable > to surmise that, given our rather limited write support currently, the kernel > ntfs code is used for data migration and limited sharing to FreeBSD in various > forms, but that msdofs remains the general data transport of choice... With this in mind, I used FAT32, but occasional Windows crashes lead to some filesystem corruption and time consuming fsck. I converted the fs to ntfs and had no more issues. General data transport of choice for usb pens, external disks, iPods, and when you need the ability to read/write it everywhere, but for running Windows it's not the best choice when compared to ntfs. If you think of it, FAT32 is the best supported (r/w) fs (on disk) by all platforms: Windows, FreeBSD, OS X, Linux. Having read the news today about the corporate support OpenID got, I dream of a *good* universally supported fs. But I digress =) > > Robert N M Watson > Computer Laboratory > University of Cambridge -- Joao Barros
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?70e8236f0802071005w7a52923w94be1f35917055d5>