Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:38:09 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Dave Reyenga <dreyenga@telus.net> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Instead of JFS, why not a whole new FS? Message-ID: <20011218103809.V14500@monorchid.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <001301c1874d$50ae0d20$02000003@tornado> References: <001301c1874d$50ae0d20$02000003@tornado>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 17 December 2001 at 22:50:45 -0000, Dave Reyenga wrote: > How about writing a new filesystem based on UFS? If it's based on UFS, it's not a new file system. > This would save all of the hassle that JFS would bring: licensing, > porting time, etc. There are no hassles with licensing. You'd be balancing porting time against writing time. Guess which would take longer. > What I'm thinking is a filesystem that takes the current UFS and > improves upon it. It could support larger partitions, That's relatively trivial. The big issue is compatibility. > more partitions in a slice, That's relatively trivial. The big issue is compatibility. > and perhaps a "Journal" partition (like the current "swap" > partition) Well, I don't think the journal would be like swap. > among other new features. That's pretty much what IBM did. They called the result JFS. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011218103809.V14500>