From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 7 18:05:20 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C75616A419 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:05:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from qpadla@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.174]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C929413C448 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:05:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from qpadla@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id y2so1074798uge.37 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:05:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=z/MklbfQrp57C3iLkRTr3HlI+9bzPk5nmM+4JI2GIn8=; b=Mk3xt473S6yCfm65pb4tm9gNKua4AlYJV3HSuf5IqTxV5hTH9NDdt9+6k4XFaJQMd9FT+79sPwh09pGtHEid9WOMyR0ojcBBZBHBz4UkQWrwBdxeHspAWzIG+XpdEHh/1jroUDy9AnIZVX+8ViQ9lV0EdEwch/D+SMxV5q9plo0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=ZO4nz0Cc22Qr31sjBcMWJsPyf46WUq8nce8W8WVqDfYUVukW0B3KkHMiHeRMQP48AFn3q+U1rBvcPUKl21bu2DfVV1/uR0NgUAgGHZzvlfaq2MdTzK6AdqOpfOPM/jAr/gc+T1njP2PjrfnLji3SXx54P2EieYFBYrxPA7wEw0s= Received: by 10.66.251.20 with SMTP id y20mr4288809ugh.67.1202405985490; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:39:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from atlas.local ( [89.162.141.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k28sm10179747ugd.77.2008.02.07.09.39.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:39:44 -0800 (PST) From: Nikolay Pavlov To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:39:47 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <70e8236f0802070321n9097d3fy1b39f637b3c2a06@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <70e8236f0802070321n9097d3fy1b39f637b3c2a06@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802071939.48039.qpadla@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Joao Barros , Doug Barton , Jeff Roberson , Yar Tikhiy , Attilio Rao , Scot Hetzel Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: qpadla@gmail.com List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:05:20 -0000 On Thursday 07 February 2008 13:21:34 Joao Barros wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 1:00 AM, Attilio Rao wrote: > > As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken even before first > > VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those commits exposed > > some problems about NTFS which are currently under investigation. > > Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the moment. > > > > Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible compromise: > > remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care of the FUSE > > implementation. > > What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a light on us > > about what do you think about this idea and its implications: > > - Do you use NTFS? > > Yes. Important in a dual booting enviroment. > > > - Are you interested in maintaining it? > > I would If I had the needed knowledge in FS and Kernel. I only have > availability to offer. > > > - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs implementation? What > > the kernel counter part adds? > > Yes: Speed. I think this is related only for FreeBSD: http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html I've used it on linux before and the performance was in pair to kernel implementation. > A year ago when building my zfs box I had to migrate 500GB of data off > NTFS. FUSE ntfs is WAY slow. I didn't do a proper benchmark then but I > could setup something now if interest arises. > I didn't have any problems like those being reported with CURRENT from > April 2007 if I recall the date correctly when I copied all that data. > > > - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea? > > Yes if... > > Yes if FUSE ntfs can have performance on par with the current ntfs > support. Yes if FUSE ntfs license model doesn't become an issue. > Yes because FUSE ntfs write support is neat =) -- ====================================================================== - Best regards, Nikolay Pavlov. <<<----------------------------------- ======================================================================