Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 08:11:23 -0500 From: David Parfitt <diparfitt@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FS impl. Message-ID: <3c220db00505070611753c7843@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1115416757.96600.9391.camel@palm> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0505061259000.3568-100000@barleywine.eng.netapp.com> <1115416757.96600.9391.camel@palm>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi - Thank you all for the suggestions - I have a long weekend of hacking ahead of me :-) Thanks again - David On 5/6/05, Stephan Uphoff <ups@tree.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 16:01, Kip Macy wrote: > > On Fri, 6 May 2005, David Parfitt wrote: > > > > > Hi - > > > I have been trying to write my own UFS-like filesystem > > > implementation for fun. I had read somewhere that UFS was developed i= n > > > user space (correct me if I'm wrong on that one) and then moved over > > > to kernel-space. I was wondering if there are any existing facilities > > > in the kernel source tree that would allow me to develop an fs in use= r > > > space easily or with a little tweaking? As of right now, I have to > > > develop, compile, panic, reboot, debug etc. which is frustrating and > > > time consuming. > > > > > > I can't speak for user-space utilities, but using xen as a development > > environment would dramatically shorten the panic and reboot cycle. In a= ddition, > > you don't require a 2nd machine to debug with GDB. Just a thought. If b= ooting > > Linux makes you itch, NetBSD support for acting as the control plane is= supposed > > to be stable. >=20 > I agree. >=20 > I used this approach with vmware a while ago and was more than happy. > >From what I see xen reboots are even faster (I only tried Xen with > NetBSD and linux so far). Hopefully Kip's work will make it into current > before I need a setup like this for FreeBSD. >=20 > An alternative would be a fast booting second machine with PXE (network) > booting. (real server hardware takes forever to boot - use consumer > boxes without ECC memory,SCSI, memory test,...) >=20 > Things have changed a bit since UFS was developed making development in > user space more difficult due to extra functionality that would need to > be ported/emulated to/in user space. > There is also no pressure to do this since development in kernel space > is so much easier these days. >=20 > This being said I highly recommend writing user space test applications > that integrate modules/functions from your FS whenever possible. >=20 > Stephan >=20 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3c220db00505070611753c7843>