Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:29:55 -0600 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@freebsd.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, yar@freebsd.org, swhetzel@gmail.com, andre@freebsd.org, jeff@freebsd.org, alfred@freebsd.org, attilio@freebsd.org, dougb@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support Message-ID: <47ABCCB3.70009@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20080207155338.Q15691@desktop> References: <20080207141820.GR99258@elvis.mu.org> <3bbf2fe10802070621h574f5d3kb4fbd86adbab11c@mail.gmail.com> <20080207.163454.-1471235838.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080207.165316.1678770676.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080207155338.Q15691@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >> In message: <20080207.163454.-1471235838.imp@bsdimp.com> >> "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: >> : In message: <3bbf2fe10802070621h574f5d3kb4fbd86adbab11c@mail.gmail.com> >> : "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> writes: >> : : 2008/2/7, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>: >> : : > * Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> [080207 06:13] wrote: >> : : > > 2008/2/7, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>: >> : : > > > 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. >> : : > >> : : > All I'm saying is that I think this is a bit premature considering >> : : > the users. Within less than 24hrs we've had a few users reporting >> : : > in as users, I'm sure the fixes (now that we have some good >> assertions) >> : : > are going to be trivial. >> : : > >> : : > Why not let it ferment/rot for a release cycle and then see what >> : : > the story is? >> : : >> : : Obviously if we can fix it is better, but axing is an opportunity I >> : : don't want to leave out and this is why I wanted to poll users about >> : : this issue. Eventually, if an axing is decided, it won't happen in >> : : short times but only once all situations for "migration" will be >> : : probed and finished. >> : >> : WE SHOULD NOT AXE IT. IT IS TOO USEFUL. VERY RECENTLY IT WORKED VERY >> : WELL. >> : >> : There's a lot of other systems in the tree that aren't nearly as >> : useful that nobody is complaining about that are actually in much >> : worse shape. >> >> OK. I shouldn't have shouted. My basic point is that ntfs worked >> very recently, and therefore we owe it to ourselves to give it some >> time to get fixed. fuse is unknown, not even in head and the >> performance characteristics between the two aren't known. Also, I use >> ntfs to recover data from "crashed" disks because it copes well with >> bad spots on the disk. None of the other filesystems in the tree does >> this, and that makes it a very powerful tool for dealing with crashed >> disks that others say are unrecoverable. > > Not picking on anyone in particular, but let's keep in mind that this > was an enquiry not a real proposal to axe it right away. I suggested > Attilio find out if there were users and clearly there are. So there is > value in keeping this thing working and fuse isn't a sure bet. We just > wanted to understand the situation before acting. > > However, this is open source. Some one needs to step up to the plate > and fix these bugs. It's only 4,700 lines of code. It shouldn't be > insurmountable for someone who has a passing understanding of VFS. > > Some of the bugs were exposed by better asserts and witness support by > Attilio. I don't think his effort to fix lockmgr should be hung up > trying to understand ntfs however unless he directly broke it. It's > going to have to continue firing asserts until someone fixes it. > > Also, ntfs is a strange bird compared to other filesystems. Briefly > looking at it, there may be some subtle architectural problems with it. > For example, it creates 'ntnode' inodes that aren't associated with > vnodes and so have their own lifecycle management. It is likely that > this is the source of the panics that I have heard of. > > An eager volunteer might also consider making it MPSAFE to further > reduce the number of filesystems which require Giant so we can > eventually drop the hideous giant wrappers. Are all the known bugs entered into gnats already? Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47ABCCB3.70009>