Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:58:09 -0400 (EDT) From: eric@ms.uky.edu To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The VIVA file system (fwd) Message-ID: <9608261858.aa24476@t2.t2.mscf.uky.edu> In-Reply-To: <199608262155.OAA23328@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Aug 26, 96 02:55:12 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I know that I saw the paper at least two years and 5 months ago, if not > before that -- I *think* I saw it the week it came out; there was a > presentation by one of the grad students involved to the USL FS gurus: > Art Sabsevitch, Wen Ling Lu, etc., of the code on SVR4. > I was the sole implementor of all versions of Viva. No other grad students were involved at the time... > > > For all the discussion below, you must remember that the platforms for > > Viva were 1) AT&T SysV, and 2) BSDI's BSD/386. We abandoned SysV > > because I wanted to release the code, then came the AT&T lawsuit:-( > > I saw the code on #1. That's part of what made me skeptical; the > SVR4 FFS implementation was intentionally (IMO) crippled on a lot > of defaults and tunables so they could make the claims they did > about VXFS. The VXFS code was the shining golden baby. Never mind > that it was itself FFS derived (for example, it used SVR4 UFS directory > management code without modification). Any comparison against SVR4 > UFS as it was will be incredibly biased, even if the bias was not > an intentional result of the testing conditions, because the UFS > code came pre-biased. 8-(. Are you talking about VIFS or VXFS? I seem to remember that VXFS was the Veritas File System. Veritas had nothing to do with Viva. Perhaps you are confusing the two. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi? <9608261858.aa24476>