From owner-freebsd-fs  Mon Aug 26 16:03:14 1996
Return-Path: owner-fs
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA22641
          for fs-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA22634;
          Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP;
   Mon, 26 Aug 96 19:01:03 EDT
Received: from t1.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa24476; 26 Aug 96 18:58 EDT
From: eric@ms.uky.edu
Subject: Re: The VIVA file system (fwd)
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:58:09 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199608262155.OAA23328@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Aug 26, 96 02:55:12 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <9608261858.aa24476@t2.t2.mscf.uky.edu>
Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


> 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.

Eric