From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 7 23:03:10 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 C02BF16A46E for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:03:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx24.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 34F4B13C45E for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:03:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 12676 invoked by uid 399); 7 Feb 2008 23:03:08 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.4?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 7 Feb 2008 23:03:08 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <47AB8E28.4050502@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:03:04 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <47AAFDED.9030301@freebsd.org> <47AB05A1.7010803@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10802070613mf2bf3feg5dcb480501fcfbbc@mail.gmail.com> <20080207171913.M96200@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20080207171913.M96200@fledge.watson.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Yar Tikhiy , Scot Hetzel , Andre Oppermann , Jeff Roberson , Attilio Rao , 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 23:03:10 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > 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 debugging and fixing read support is generally a lot > easier for a variety of reasons. The few serious attempts I've made to use the NTFS in the base to write data were unsuccessful, and given the instability of the code I didn't push it very hard since I didn't want to scramble my data. > There's also a lot less risk to data. :-) Right. :) > 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... Read support that works is better than R/W support that doesn't, yes. So if someone wants to step up to maintain this and axing write support gets us something that actually works, who am I to argue? I think keeping the goal(s) of R/W support in the base, and/or working FUSE in mind is a Good Thing, but getting a working solution to at least one of these problems would be a big step forward. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection