Erik, Erik Trimble píše v st 09. 12. 2009 v 05:11 -0800: > Milan Jurik wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > > > Erik Trimble píše v st 09. 12. 2009 v 01:35 -0800: > > > >> Milan Jurik wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Thomas, > >>> > >>> Thomas Maier-Komor píše v st 09. 12. 2009 v 09:32 +0100: > >>> > >>> > >>> There is no technical reason, only limited manpower, why OSol cannot > >>> support ext2/ext3. On-disk format is stable and documented and here is > >>> the solution: > >>> > >>> http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+ext3/ > >>> > >>> SMB/NFS is good for migration if you have 2 systems but for small > >>> business and dualboot it is not good enough. > >>> > >>> > >> How is small business relevant? > >> > >> > > > > Small business with one fileserver. Some of them cannot buy another > > system only for data migration, they migrate data inside one box (I > > participated on such activities few times). "Small" means few people > > company but sometimes with large amount of data (like some Public > > Relations companies, graphic studios etc.). > > > That's insane. Nobody can do this - you can't expect to do a OS > migration without having blank disks to install the new OS onto. Even > then, you don't move between two major OSes and keep the old disk(s) in > the previous OS's native filesystem, for use later as data partitions. > When moving from Windows2000 server to Windows2003 server, they > recommend you wipe and reformat any NTFS partitions. Switching Linux > distros usually results in migrating ext2/3 versions on partitions. > > You back up the data on the machine, wipe it, and install the new OS. > > A small business server costs under $2k these days for a decent one, $5k > for a beefy one. Businesses that can't afford those costs can't afford > to do a migration. Manpower costs alone to do the migration exceed > either of those. And, honestly, OpenSolaris isn't targeted at someone > who can't afford to pay for a modest new machine every couple of years. > Doing a OS migration on a single, non-redundant machine while retaining > the original OS isn't a realistic rational scenario. Doesn't mean it > can't be done in some OSes. Doesn't mean it SHOULD be done, even on > those OSes. >
Call those people insane who paid for it. But I met such situations. If you have hundreds of gigabytes stored on such system, you are evaluating all possible ways. And yes, we did such migration for much smaller price than $2k. > >> I simply can't seem to think of a reason why ext2/3/4 support is really > >> useful for OpenSolaris; all the scenarios I can come up with can be > >> equally served by using ISO or FAT or network sharing, or, frankly, the > >> situation is contrived. > >> > >> > > > > Will you share your documentation in dualboot on FAT partition on your > > laptop? Based on poor quality of FAT design and FAT implementation in > > OSol, no, thanks. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Milan > > > Once again, you don't do this. Nobody installs two completely different > OSes onto the same partition, let alone two OSes that share virtually > identical directory structures, so you certainly wouldn't be installing > Linux and OpenSolaris on the same partition. Hell, you're not supposed > to even do that with Windows. And, I forget the last time anyone > rationally intended to install the root partition as FAT - I think I > remember possibly doing that on Linux sometime around 1995, and even > Windows hasn't recommended FAT as the C: drive for about a decade now. > > With a laptop or any other dual-boot situation, the rational thing to do > is one partition per OS (i.e. one for Windows, one for OpenSolaris, > maybe one for Linux if you're really feeling weird), and a separate one > formatted in FAT as the data partition. And, there's nothing wrong with > the OSol FAT implementation. It's worked fine for years. > Really? Fine? Are you using it for longer time for data sharing? Not just downloading data from USB stick (but even that is not nice). Memory hungry, slow etc. Nobody said something about sharing root partition. But ~/Documents/ on dedicated partition? Will you share it on FAT? > Yes, there are lots of scenarios where you COULD want it. Just like I > COULD want to add a jet engine to my Honda. > > If someone really wants to add ext2/3/4 support, I'm not going to stop > them. But I'm certainly not seeing any real use case outside the > fringe-hobbyist niche, and nothing that would justify spending any > non-volunteer time to support. Strange that at least once per month we have the same question across mailing lists - "where is ext2/ext3 support in Solaris?". Yes, all major OSes, including MS Windows with 3rd party solution, has ext2 supported. And we use only excuses like "use CIFS/NFS, use FAT". I prefer to spend my time to solve it if possible. Best regards, Milan _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
