From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 7 18:05:42 2008 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 35B0816A420 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:05:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F5413C467 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:05:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so1073902nfb.33 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:05:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ezjvcAe+bLr0s4F0itMGCQZ/FTjWB2MJavwMsBxRWAM=; b=lAwtOQjNyMhwicXMF/m8PVT8vclcOIezaxfLjq2Yme8X9Do2fMJGmkg+hndW7dtbYjfO6mzCPrHlbCTHf6GG0KT0Ni6lWTAbYOWIAcxdd9Xq+wetRc/W/xMgS3x8MOSgi6SAQZFJs9CoMDMtKI/RfAKvAQAmaFg3lzG0X9j98ZQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EzGIbqlcTGgWLcfPAVcqRkHFVmfHDEHVh71u9Nps9QF/xl7HM4zRzWoeohQ6uGxvkWX+a7sjdo3LNHgXHBdiVpfNcpapq9daUKB1zuOWe+6skDW5sZr78PhI7MNwdzCcKUQbugwE5AGa8O+gqENO0//tpqAUa7qv9iaA6smvr88= Received: by 10.78.122.16 with SMTP id u16mr20818341huc.21.1202407539265; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.189.6 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:05:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <70e8236f0802071005w7a52923w94be1f35917055d5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:05:39 +0000 From: "Joao Barros" To: "Robert Watson" In-Reply-To: <20080207171913.M96200@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <47AAFDED.9030301@freebsd.org> <47AB05A1.7010803@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10802070613mf2bf3feg5dcb480501fcfbbc@mail.gmail.com> <20080207171913.M96200@fledge.watson.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Yar Tikhiy , Scot Hetzel , Andre Oppermann , Jeff Roberson , Attilio Rao , Doug Barton , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support 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: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:05:42 -0000 On Feb 7, 2008 5:20 PM, Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Attilio Rao wrote: > > > 2008/2/7, Andre Oppermann : > > > >> Eric Anderson wrote: > >>> I think Alfred's point is really interesting. How many people that don't > >>> use it that say 'axe it' does it take to override 1 person saying 'keep > >>> it!'? > >> > >> The real question is how many people does it take to say 'I'll maintain > >> it'? Just one. Without it, it will only bitrot as evidenced by Attilios > >> question. NTFS is currently broken, just not as obvious because WITNESS > >> didn't track and enforce lockmgr locks. > > > > Andre catched exactly my point. The big problem is that we have a list of > > several unmaintained fs. NTFS is in this list. The support is not reliable, > > it is only available in read mode and eventually bugged. I'm not sure I want > > to keep this if nobody wants to maintain it. > > If you axe write support, does the maintainability of the kernel ntfs get > easier? As I understand it, the write support is rather limited, and If I recall correctly ntfs volumes are mounted readonly by default (I'm unable to verify now). > debugging and fixing read support is generally a lot easier for a variety of > reasons. There's also a lot less risk to data. :-) I think it's reasonable > to surmise that, given our rather limited write support currently, the kernel > ntfs code is used for data migration and limited sharing to FreeBSD in various > forms, but that msdofs remains the general data transport of choice... With this in mind, I used FAT32, but occasional Windows crashes lead to some filesystem corruption and time consuming fsck. I converted the fs to ntfs and had no more issues. General data transport of choice for usb pens, external disks, iPods, and when you need the ability to read/write it everywhere, but for running Windows it's not the best choice when compared to ntfs. If you think of it, FAT32 is the best supported (r/w) fs (on disk) by all platforms: Windows, FreeBSD, OS X, Linux. Having read the news today about the corporate support OpenID got, I dream of a *good* universally supported fs. But I digress =) > > Robert N M Watson > Computer Laboratory > University of Cambridge -- Joao Barros