From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jun 11 11:54:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA09936 for current-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA09926 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA06429; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:47:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199706111847.LAA06429@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: vxfs (was Re: overclocking) To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:47:57 -0700 (MST) Cc: hasty@rah.star-gate.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Michael Hancock" at Jun 11, 97 06:31:56 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [ ... VXFS ... ] > It's not available for *BSD. The reasons cited were ... > > 1) It's a large porting task, fs/vnode semantics vary quite a bit > between Unix implementations. Actually, it would not be a difficult port (I worked on the VXFS code in UnixWare a bit; I'm fairly familiar with it). The most difficult task would be the Vm/Cache issues, mostly because the new VM system is poorly documented (good code; bad docs). > 2) They want a larger market or someone to fund the development. This is more believable. ;-). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.