From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 16:33:57 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED361065687; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:33:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E7A8FC0A; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:33:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F12C46B23; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:33:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:33:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Luigi Rizzo In-Reply-To: <20090119081843.GA49607@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> Message-ID: References: <49742ADA.5080509@FreeBSD.org> <20090119081843.GA49607@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: NTFS in GENERIC: opt-in or opt-out? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:33:58 -0000 On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:25:14PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> >> I am reviewing differences between amd64 and i386 GENERIC kernels and >> noticed that for some unclear reason we ship amd64 GENERIC with NTFS module >> compiled in, while i386 without it. IMHO both should match. The question is >> whether NTFS should be i386 way (opt in) or amd64 way (opt out) in GENERIC? >> What do people think? > > given that the sysutils/fusefs-ntfs seems to be much better, I'd rather > remove the in-kernel ntfs from both and replace with a note on what to do to > use fusefs-ntfs There was a long thread on this topic on arch@, maybe 6 months ago, in which it was concluded that: (1) fusefs is fairly (quite) unstable if used intensively (2) our kernel ntfs code is much faster for read-only operation I doubt either of these has changed significantly in that time, but I'm willing to be surprised. I watched my office-mate here at the CL suffer through the fuse/ntfs support on FreeBSD 7.x for several weeks before giving up and using UFS on his larger USB-attached storage. He saw a range of panics in that time, all in fuse. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge