According to: https://web.archive.org/web/20200520085926/https://itsfoss.com/hyperbola-linux-bsd/
They are going to add following: >We have plans on porting BTRFS, JFS2, NetBSD’s CHFS, DragonFlyBSD’s >HAMMER/HAMMER2 and the Linux kernel’s JFFS2, all of which have licenses >compatible with GPLv3. Long term, we may also support Ext4, F2FS, ReiserFS and >Reiser4, but they will need to be rewritten due to being licensed exclusively >under GPLv2, which does not allow use with GPLv3. All of these file systems >will require development and stability testing, so they will be in later >HyperbolaBSD releases and not for our initial stable version(s). As for me at least BTRFS and JFS2 look nice, but I would prefer a ZFS option (build time switch) instead of BTRFS and XFS instead of JFS2. Having such complex file systems in the kernel without ability to disable them completely may be too insecure? > > >> > "Possible" is irrelevant. Lots of things are _possible_ but not done. >> >> Then only rsyncing? >> >> Why not adding at least one of a well tested journaled FS like XFS to >> OpenBSD? >> Is XFS too fat and complex to be secure? >> >> Does OpenBSD work well if system root is stored via NFS, say on a Linux ZFS? >> > >rsync is one option, if you can keep both partitions online. >dump followed by newfs and restore also works and allows you to keep >the backup on another system. > >As for other FS types or adding journalling to FFS: nobody willing and >*able* showed up so far. > >-Otto > > > >
