Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:58:09 -0400 (EDT) From: eric@ms.uky.edu To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The VIVA file system (fwd) Message-ID: <9608261858.aa24476@t2.t2.mscf.uky.edu> In-Reply-To: <199608262155.OAA23328@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Aug 26, 96 02:55:12 pm
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> I know that I saw the paper at least two years and 5 months ago, if not > before that -- I *think* I saw it the week it came out; there was a > presentation by one of the grad students involved to the USL FS gurus: > Art Sabsevitch, Wen Ling Lu, etc., of the code on SVR4. > I was the sole implementor of all versions of Viva. No other grad students were involved at the time... > > > For all the discussion below, you must remember that the platforms for > > Viva were 1) AT&T SysV, and 2) BSDI's BSD/386. We abandoned SysV > > because I wanted to release the code, then came the AT&T lawsuit:-( > > I saw the code on #1. That's part of what made me skeptical; the > SVR4 FFS implementation was intentionally (IMO) crippled on a lot > of defaults and tunables so they could make the claims they did > about VXFS. The VXFS code was the shining golden baby. Never mind > that it was itself FFS derived (for example, it used SVR4 UFS directory > management code without modification). Any comparison against SVR4 > UFS as it was will be incredibly biased, even if the bias was not > an intentional result of the testing conditions, because the UFS > code came pre-biased. 8-(. Are you talking about VIFS or VXFS? I seem to remember that VXFS was the Veritas File System. Veritas had nothing to do with Viva. Perhaps you are confusing the two. Erichome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9608261858.aa24476>