[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensolaris-ufs-discuss
Subject:    [ufs-discuss] Any interest in UFS2 ?
From:       Geoff.Buckingham () reuters ! com (Geoff Buckingham)
Date:       2005-06-22 5:45:01
Message-ID: 080BE7A1F7A1AE49A5A004EA5279D26A04842163 () LONSMSXM01 ! emea ! ime ! reuters ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On the issue of ext2/3, which was raised at Mondays user group.
Specifically that the GPL would prevent porting the Linux's ext2/3. The
motivation for this appears to be people dual-booting PCs. (GPL should
not be an issue as I believe NetBSD has an untainted ext2/3
implementation derived from their UFS.)

I think people would be interested in
ntfs/ext2/ext3/ufs(bsd)/ufs2/hfs+(apple) and fat in order to be able to
read 'foreign' disks or partitions. (Probably rieserfs xfs and gfs too,
although these have no non GPL implementations I am aware of).

Of the above I would only be interested in ufs2 for purposes other than
simple data migration/sharing.

Does Solaris already have something in place to provide abstraction of
the on disk byte-order, between sparc and x86?

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Debnath [mailto:Shawn.Debnath@Sun.COM] 
Sent: 21 June 2005 23:47
To: Frank Batschulat
Cc: Geoff Buckingham; ufs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [ufs-discuss] Any interest in UFS2 ?

So there are 3 filesystems that are losely based on the same principles:

ext2/3 (very different, but ondisk idealogy remains same), solaris ufs,
and bsd ufs. I think a merger would be quite useful, and would lead
towards an unified file system for the three worlds. Making customers
happy. Yes our version of UFS does have a lot of the features, better
shadow inode storage, extended attributes, and logging, However, none of
them are being fully utilized because of imperfections (si and ext attr,
are not utilized, and logging has design issues). If this project can
aim to solve the general problems and not write a brand new file system,
I see this to be of an immense value to the community. Of course this
isn't easy, but thats the challenge.

Shawn

Frank Batschulat wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:57:28 +0200, Shawn Debnath 
> <Shawn.Debnath@Sun.COM>  wrote:
> 
>> As a company I am not sure if there is interest to pursue UFS2. ZFS 
>> is  our next generation file system and a lot of hard work is being 
>> put into  it.
> 
> 
> quite correct.
> 
>> However, from an UFS developer's point of view, fixing the 
>> oh-so-many-flaws-in-design issues with the current UFS is definitely 
>> a  plus. This would include mucking with locking and other components

>> as  well integrating enhancements from McKusick's paper.  Perhaps we 
>> can  move towards a protected extended attribute namespace as well?
>> Who is up  for this? :-D
> 
> 
> there's a minor quirk, BSD UFS2 depends on softupdates, our UFS does 
> have logging. I dont think a merger is usefull.
> 
> ---
> frankB
> 
>>
>> Shawn
>>
>> Geoff Buckingham wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any interest in UFS2, I believe Sun may have attempted an 
>>> implementation in the past, (Solaris 9 timeframe) so there may be 
>>> code  in Sun already.
>>>  Anyone curious about UFS2 may find out more here:
>>>   
>>> http://www.usenix.org/events/bsdcon03/tech/full_papers/mckusick/mcku
>>> sick.pdf
>>>
> 
> 



------------- ---------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]