Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:13:16 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Derek Funk <dfunk6@cox.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Filesystems Message-ID: <4C9D146C.10009@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4C9D0499.3050908@cox.net> References: <4C9D0499.3050908@cox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 24/09/2010 21:05:45, Derek Funk wrote:
> There was a post some time ago someone was complaining that FreeBSD
> still uses and archaic filesystem and not a new FS like ext4. Some
> replied, seeming like a code contributor, with a very sounded reply.
> What is that reply?
ZFS
or words to that effect. Linux has nothing comparable.
Cheers,
Matthew
Not that UFS2 comes off badly when compared to ext{3,4}. There's
something pretty dodgy about a filesystem that insists on being fsck'd
every 180 days or 30 remounts.
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkydFHIACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyi7QCdHAOoP/mAewMliMdOdHXG+coV
FBwAn3BzgYSvSiiTVrGC8w+76EugNOPP
=vnOX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C9D146C.10009>