Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:04:37 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Antony Mawer <lists@mawer.org> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Gustau_P=C3=A9rez_i_Querol?= <gperez@entel.upc.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Holm <pho@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, George Neville-Neil <gnn@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MPSAFE VFS -- List of upcoming actions Message-ID: <CAJ-FndAHWPdD%2BuFoOYttQe9t11iLBn%2B1RRUh4U_xQbguRP=-cA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACTUWnj7ECa2ZRuNk-NPgnY82Ma5XNto9yvYZjEXokpSj8FuRQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-FndAJtFx_OhqzDvBSLQ5pEaX730oF8Tbyk%2BkYbz9y1KaXXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndC=3Z9hNAHR9cwwypxhx%2Be27%2B6eiHWxOxRBij8H_wLb6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndBzoeXpFFHEmhiYZ9er=n0zXSXXo-vbrLX4ZmYdjDQMhg@mail.gmail.com> <50064FB2.3020409@entel.upc.edu> <CAJ-FndBWJpdCTnCYhoUsr0zyKuNF9Dg_H64tjScFg5OGq7NmqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTUWnj7ECa2ZRuNk-NPgnY82Ma5XNto9yvYZjEXokpSj8FuRQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/21/12, Antony Mawer <lists@mawer.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: >> 2012/7/18, Gustau P=C3=A9rez i Querol <gperez@entel.upc.edu>: >>> >>> Sorry fo the delay. >>> >>> About the ntfs support, I'd go with fuse and leave the most relevan= t >>> filesystems in kernel space. In fact filesystems not particulary >>> specific and not tied our kernel would go to userspace; thinks like >>> smbfs, nwfs, ntfs, ext2 o ext4 for example should be in userspace (the >>> list is incomplete and I don't really know if all of them are yet >>> implemenent in userspace) in my opinion. That would make them easier to >>> maintain (changes in the kernel would only affect fuse, once fixed all >>> the userspace filesystem would work again). >>> >>> As a bonus, we would get many working fs based on fuse. In the >>> server side gluster is a desirable thing; in the desktop things like >>> gvfs (in the linux world gvfs is used not only by gnome but also by kde >>> or xfce) or truecrypt >> >> I'm really concerned also about ntfs and smbfs at the moment. It seems >> that there is also a FUSE smbfs port, but I never used it and I'm not >> sure about its state at all. > > From what I understand, Apple have done a considerable amount of work > on the FreeBSD-drived smbfs in the latest versions of OS X, based on > the existing smbfs in tree: I've also found that there are 2 FUSE modules for smbfs but pho@ and flo@ still haven't tested them. It may make sense to do so before we commit FUSE to -CURRENT. However, thee is a plan by a $COMPANY to work on the in-kernel version of smbfs and lock it before 10.0 is shipped. In the unlikely events this doesn't happen we will came up with a different plan (assuming we will adopt anyway the FUSE module, if it proves to work well). > http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/smb-552.5/ > > I imagine things like the filesystem locking are probably somewhat > different, but in terms of updating smbfs itself to support newer > features it may be a good base (licensing permitting). smbfs at the > moment lacks in some areas such as DFS support, although I do not know > if the OS X version is any different there (given the consumer focus > of their OS, probably not). There was also a version spun off by > OpenSolaris: > > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+smbfs/ > > which again was based on the FreeBSD + Apple versions. > > I also have a vested interest in NWFS continuing to work - only from a > legacy point of view where we still interoperate with a number of > Netware 6 servers through this. While those will likely eventually go > away, more than likely before we move to 10.x, if there is anyone > capable of working on it we could supply a test environment. > Unfortunately the actual locking of the NWFS and NCP modules is > outside my sphere of knowledge... If you have NCP, do you think you can try this netncp I never committed because lack of testing?: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2009-January/005617.html IIRC, Apple does a similar thing for netsmb (which suffers from a similar problem as netncp). Do you know if FUSE can support NWFS in any way? Starting providing stress-tests on the current codebase for NWFS/NetNCP (and report bugs found, preparing a list) could be a good way to start the locking effort. Interested developers then can look into such a list and provide necessary insight. Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndAHWPdD%2BuFoOYttQe9t11iLBn%2B1RRUh4U_xQbguRP=-cA>