Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:16:30 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: "M. L. Dodson" <bdodson@beowulf.utmb.edu>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mount_tar or something... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970604110123.12573F-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199706031937.OAA09598@beowulf.utmb.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, M. L. Dodson wrote: > > > > > > [Windows user stupid question...] > > Q.I can't find a mount_tar command, I wonder why ! > > A.because it would be silly and no doubt have a 64MB limit. > > > > I think I've seen this question go past before, but more along > > the lines of why can't I read my "stackered/compressed windows drive?" > > > > Well, I don't use windows unless I really have to, so that's not a > > problem, all I'd like is to have a compressed ufs or something. > > > > I can happily tar up all my man pages, the handbook, even virtually all my > > executables. (which is probably a stupid idea!) However I _can't_ have a > > filesystem which is just plain compressed. > > > > Is anyone working on this, has it been done, have I missed something? > > If not are there any plans to do this, and if not why not ? > > > > Thanks, > > Steve Roome. (idiot?!) > > Not idiot, but maybe not familiar with the objectives of people > who develop *nix operating systems or develop on *nix operating systems. > I dare say that almost of the FreeBSD core team would consider a > compressed file system a toy, at best. And I would agree with them. Odd, I'm not sure how I feel about this =) I've been using FreeBSD and/or *nix for some ten years and while I agree that it's just plain strange to want things like compressed file systems in any unix. There are times when I think it would be useful. Although what's odd is that I've only just thought recently that it would be useful. I'd love to be able to have my entire ftp source for the latest stable FreeBSD on a compressed filesystem. I'd put it on tape, but that takes a tape drive up for ages, and it doesn't have any easy parallel access. > > Unix has traditionally been oriented toward performance in all its parts > and toward the parts being exceptionally robust. Developing compressed > file systems does not move toward either of these goals. I'm not sure, people have always been compressing data to some extent, and I don't think Unix has always actually moved in this direction as you say, although it would be much better if it had. Some of the things Linux has done, for example, asynchronous filesystems.. giving performance at the cost of reliability don't fit your trend. Well, I'm not to keen on Linux for that reason either, but the Linux's out there account for a lot of "Unix Machines". > > IMHO, compressed file systems come close to the greatest evil ever > inflicted by Microsoft on their consumers (and that is saying a lot). Compressed file systems when used in the way microsoft would intend you to, i.e. compressing even your c:\windows directory and all the apps you use most often, is unthinkable morosity. However having data which you must store, on non-removable media such as large files for ftp (like the source for FreeBSD) compressed doesn't detract from your goals of performance and robustness. It does however offer me the chance to save something in the region of 250M or more (my FreeBSD source for ftp takes up 580M). I see your point though, and I'd still like to see some support for compressed file systems. > > Bud Dodson > > -- > M. L. Dodson bdodson@scms.utmb.edu > 409-772-2178 FAX: 409-772-1790 > Steve Roome.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970604110123.12573F-100000>