From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Mar 26 2:34:51 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BCE37B405 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:34:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4318243F85 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:34:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0122.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.122] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18y8F1-0000R0-00; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:34:43 -0800 Message-ID: <3E8181D8.46C77E08@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:32:56 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Donn Miller Cc: David Schultz , fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is there no JFS? References: <3E8169A3.7090309@cvzoom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4957892169a87bb5e7f91d2a3d588d8aa350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-22.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Donn Miller wrote: > I personally think LFS would be the best choice as an alternative to > UFS, but I haven't really looked into the technical aspects of LFS yet. The unified VM and buffer cache changes which were made to FFS, but not to LFS, by John Dyson, and the lack of a working "cleaner", were the primary reasons LFS "died" to the Attic. NetBSD has since written a working "cleaner", and the VM system interface changes aren't really *that* hard to understand. LFS would be moderately easy to revive to a working condition. You would get a lot of crap from certain corners of the peanut gallery about "why bother?", though. Some of this is justifiable as a criticism, because the real reason there's interest in a new FS design is the ability to boot fast after a crash, and LFS does not give you a heck of a lot of this, because the data it protects is only the metadata. You would need to add an NTFS-style "flip-flop" log on top of that for data logs, and then delay wakeups until they were known to be committed to one of the flip-flops. Also, though LFS is loosely based on the FFS code (which is why a forward port would not be difficult), it doesn't contain soft updates technology, which would annoy some people. > And what about ReiserFS? It's s trivial port, but it's GPL, unless you pay for it. It also has (IMO) some patent encumberances for Novell patents. I'm not sure they are *exclusively* licensed to USL/SCO, but they *are* licensed to them, so it may be an SCO vs. IBM thing pretty quickly (the specific patents are US Patent 5666532 and 5642501). It may also infringe 5218695, but Epoch Systems is less litigous. PS: The only way you "prove" infringement is by being sued over infringement, and losing; hence the (IMO). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message