Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:22:10 -0800 From: Dieter BSD <dieterbsd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GSoC proposition: multiplatform UFS2 driver Message-ID: <CAA3ZYrCPJ1AydSS9n4dDBMFjHh5Ug6WDvTzncTtTw4eYrmcywg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
IIRC, "UFS" means both FFS and LFS, so is the plan to do both? Malware with a good fs bolted on is still malware, so why bother? The "fine" penguinix fs trashes data (I gave up on penguinix because of this), so adding proper FFS support could in theory be useful someday. Julio writes, > That being said, I do not like the idea of using NetBSD's UFS2 code. It > lacks Soft-Updates, which I consider to make FreeBSD UFS2 second only to > ZFS in desirability. FFS has been in production use for decades. ZFS is still wet behind the ears. Older versions of NetBSD have soft updates, and they work fine for me. I believe that NetBSD 6.0 is the first release without soft updates. They claimed that soft updates was "too difficult" to maintain. I find that soft updates are *essential* for data integrity (I don't know *why*, I'm not a FFS guru). There are bug fixes in FreeBSD's FFS that were likely never fixed in NetBSD's version, even after having FreeBSD's fix pointed out to them. Of course it is possible that Net fixed bugs that haven't been fixed in Free as well. Speaking of bugs, the first step should be to fix the open PRs. I recall something about certain newfs options being unusable because of something to do with kernel data structures. Using the resulting fs would panic (or was it hang? I forget) the kernel. I believe that problem was fixed, but when testing this on other OSes, be sure to dial various newfs options up to 11 and then use the fs heavily.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAA3ZYrCPJ1AydSS9n4dDBMFjHh5Ug6WDvTzncTtTw4eYrmcywg>