From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 7 11:49:38 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02ACF16A417 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:49:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7761013C459 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:49:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so991526nfb.33 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:49:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=OtxQQ+/UWwyOnNk8u0zbPULQr+jma0JIdwIkhAFc4u8=; b=Pvf3LXW1qWzbytvD42zmzviF8MT8NVWW5jFCNtArAvs2cOSQrRbrHv+ysxP01bZSq6ZMo+yC3MK5ysSqEfMY9jUJ+hd1pXe5qizMf4zdt5E8H1EfMhrcSXbROH81NNhgdcMqUtKYYwOc6d0ZJmB215rtt/hVvcnGnIkODHVvbs8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=bbwMgCIKEETjZ0WNygdtUsUOFHEXx53lIkU90B+wMz3IDFj8hkyfTFWyYYQMP0MCtvAEvlayZnpKAYNblylXowL0akAVpZTXdrre40tnyCdjibGSqGr3D+k2OZQCuJ4YQvOuJjOzywuoPICavE+in8mVdcZZl+WI1UcSFIqKVPI= Received: by 10.78.172.20 with SMTP id u20mr19923628hue.13.1202383294236; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.189.6 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:21:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <70e8236f0802070321n9097d3fy1b39f637b3c2a06@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:21:34 +0000 From: "Joao Barros" To: "Attilio Rao" In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> Cc: Yar Tikhiy , Doug Barton , Jeff Roberson , freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Scot Hetzel , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:49:38 -0000 On Feb 7, 2008 1:00 AM, Attilio Rao wrote: > As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken even before first > VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those commits exposed > some problems about NTFS which are currently under investigation. > Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the moment. > > Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible compromise: > remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care of the FUSE > implementation. > What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a light on us > about what do you think about this idea and its implications: > - Do you use NTFS? Yes. Important in a dual booting enviroment. > - Are you interested in maintaining it? I would If I had the needed knowledge in FS and Kernel. I only have availability to offer. > - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs implementation? What > the kernel counter part adds? Yes: Speed. A year ago when building my zfs box I had to migrate 500GB of data off NTFS. FUSE ntfs is WAY slow. I didn't do a proper benchmark then but I could setup something now if interest arises. I didn't have any problems like those being reported with CURRENT from April 2007 if I recall the date correctly when I copied all that data. > - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea? Yes if... Yes if FUSE ntfs can have performance on par with the current ntfs support. Yes if FUSE ntfs license model doesn't become an issue. Yes because FUSE ntfs write support is neat =) -- Joao Barros