Thus spake Cliff Sarginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:09:12PM -0800, David Schultz wrote: > > Thus spake Cliff Sarginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > FreeBSD support for ext2fs is a specific instance of the more > > general problem that features that very few people care about tend > > not to get maintained. FreeBSD already has a filesystem that is > > more complete and faster than ext2fs,[1] so the only people using > > both UFS and ext2fs are also running Linux. If you mount an > > ext2fs filesystem r/w, consider yourself a beta tester. > > > Oh I am not comparing their relative merits. But the thing is there are > people who for one reason or another run heterogenous networks. I mean > it is not a crime to run both Linux and FreeBSD (or is it ?). My feeling > is that it is a shame that is all. > > As for your scathing comment about the evolution of EXT2, I have no comment > since it sounds like opinion rather than fact.
The point of my post was to point out why nobody is interested in maintaining FreeBSD's ext2fs support. But ext2fs really is a simplified version of FFS! Basically, they took out support for fragments and vastly simplified the allocation policies. Some of the things they took out aren't even used anymore in FFS, like the code to take rotational offsets on the disk into consideration. On the other hand, they left out Kirk's realloc algorithm, which has been shown to significantly reduce fragmentation as filesystems age. (FYI, some people have expressed interest in porting ReiserFS to FreeBSD. Hans Reiser is willing to negotiate special exceptions to the license, as long as Microsoft can't build the next version of Windows on top of FreeBSD and be able to use his filesystem for free.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
