From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 21 00:32:33 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9381065673 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:32:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@mawer.org) Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87118FC17 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:32:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vcbgb22 with SMTP id gb22so1587769vcb.13 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:x-google-sender-delegation:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=tUM5WfuDBRsEhIzzwY6P3CsHirIaE6FD3JCliGbaRk8=; b=kVx+XCFmQQG6459veMGpbTaz28a/khykDsMydUBnV7lOWBCr+9ekKBsxqZLcIKFXHF idQQxqls4a7UEK6sB+FN420lvvacjS7MuGXm2XWcqFs/3ftGMAfLx1OTny9jr7YsO7I8 Lx9SGR7YcwfWM2HHAtNnQRXs3/wNZqGyUhjlKH9FVnNPtHfFb4LYZYQxc+tP1cJ2HuJl 6T8dwwAiv/++bJwqrK+Nq/qeEeRjBoEsAJDxXuyBGQ+o342bwpbty6hXS5GcNtO+Ibie DVVUFoAvMzldZxVI+vaunoV+ElJ51OshnTh/FiWggfqhaZSsrAdKCt0/VtGdhOaLUum/ VGWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.88.170 with SMTP id bh10mr5286287vdb.11.1342830752013; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: antony@mawer.org X-Google-Sender-Delegation: antony@mawer.org Received: by 10.52.181.194 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:32:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <50064FB2.3020409@entel.upc.edu> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:32:31 +1000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Nh4i2M0CH9XCmU3nBE5U8HLGwnY Message-ID: From: Antony Mawer To: attilio@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmKQfRDHL+qXMEggDPJWLoON1NK4KhDl+pImHPJCLWCYxNYhmx3TT4PlPRR8lruALOREXk4 Cc: FreeBSD FS , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MPSAFE VFS -- List of upcoming actions X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:32:33 -0000 On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2012/7/18, Gustau P=E9rez i Querol : >> >> Sorry fo the delay. >> >> About the ntfs support, I'd go with fuse and leave the most relevant >> filesystems in kernel space. In fact filesystems not particulary >> specific and not tied our kernel would go to userspace; thinks like >> smbfs, nwfs, ntfs, ext2 o ext4 for example should be in userspace (the >> list is incomplete and I don't really know if all of them are yet >> implemenent in userspace) in my opinion. That would make them easier to >> maintain (changes in the kernel would only affect fuse, once fixed all >> the userspace filesystem would work again). >> >> As a bonus, we would get many working fs based on fuse. In the >> server side gluster is a desirable thing; in the desktop things like >> gvfs (in the linux world gvfs is used not only by gnome but also by kde >> or xfce) or truecrypt > > I'm really concerned also about ntfs and smbfs at the moment. It seems > that there is also a FUSE smbfs port, but I never used it and I'm not > sure about its state at all. >From what I understand, Apple have done a considerable amount of work on the FreeBSD-drived smbfs in the latest versions of OS X, based on the existing smbfs in tree: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/smb-552.5/ I imagine things like the filesystem locking are probably somewhat different, but in terms of updating smbfs itself to support newer features it may be a good base (licensing permitting). smbfs at the moment lacks in some areas such as DFS support, although I do not know if the OS X version is any different there (given the consumer focus of their OS, probably not). There was also a version spun off by OpenSolaris: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+smbfs/ which again was based on the FreeBSD + Apple versions. I also have a vested interest in NWFS continuing to work - only from a legacy point of view where we still interoperate with a number of Netware 6 servers through this. While those will likely eventually go away, more than likely before we move to 10.x, if there is anyone capable of working on it we could supply a test environment. Unfortunately the actual locking of the NWFS and NCP modules is outside my sphere of knowledge... -- Antony