From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 25 17:04:40 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CA1106564A; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:04:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C658FC08; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by laai10 with SMTP id i10so875626laa.13 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:04:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iIPpTgM53dVsU1XRMgqogbRXi+kPM12x5MGHDpK5wls=; b=cNoBek6XifF1Jo6x1A8OqPv8p5zp8QTTIa4qecUeF/e7jLUD2acOxD4Ycvct/To9mw ll9pSYcKb9JSG4HgZtjk9mCWRN+jgwKyhcsWPS/mENhfm/5+PZrXnPf1Xqr/CzDG5ppt o/gh1gEjnp4+NsnZ9D1l/8jRboBplwSWMtm025AQ7HsZKsVpib82bC9exfYmJsfQZbUs yQyuUDXaH7UrFco/0Zat7v3DoqZjP0hDlJGsxyaqQSLNsPfcYOYPfvOIoXKWe5lYAEkM OW7oXKMc9yWGXSMm2S/1Zex+Cp4eDAdl5U1ekr1SRsMRO4Kj3a2BDytA3yCRS+Cuz+X+ 0dcw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.48.6 with SMTP id h6mr26700129lan.30.1343235878178; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.27.65 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:04:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <50064FB2.3020409@entel.upc.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:04:37 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: W0_UYeMtWfBKbf98-QSoUpMNL40 Message-ID: From: Attilio Rao To: Antony Mawer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Gustau_P=C3=A9rez_i_Querol?= , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Holm , FreeBSD FS , George Neville-Neil Subject: Re: MPSAFE VFS -- List of upcoming actions X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: attilio@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:04:40 -0000 On 7/21/12, Antony Mawer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Attilio Rao wrote: >> 2012/7/18, Gustau P=C3=A9rez i Querol : >>> >>> Sorry fo the delay. >>> >>> About the ntfs support, I'd go with fuse and leave the most relevan= t >>> 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: I've also found that there are 2 FUSE modules for smbfs but pho@ and flo@ still haven't tested them. It may make sense to do so before we commit FUSE to -CURRENT. However, thee is a plan by a $COMPANY to work on the in-kernel version of smbfs and lock it before 10.0 is shipped. In the unlikely events this doesn't happen we will came up with a different plan (assuming we will adopt anyway the FUSE module, if it proves to work well). > 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... If you have NCP, do you think you can try this netncp I never committed because lack of testing?: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2009-January/005617.html IIRC, Apple does a similar thing for netsmb (which suffers from a similar problem as netncp). Do you know if FUSE can support NWFS in any way? Starting providing stress-tests on the current codebase for NWFS/NetNCP (and report bugs found, preparing a list) could be a good way to start the locking effort. Interested developers then can look into such a list and provide necessary insight. Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein