Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 06:28:56PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 22:45:22 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: Hiten Pandya wrote: i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... Not unless you have plans. When I was an IBM employee, they would not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts. I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up. Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know if it will buy us anything. It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high performance and maximum throughput... No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not the good AIX JFS code. That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so it's not as if it's second-rate. From what I've seen of the structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1. I haven't compared performance. I happened to be with IBM working on AIX (I was the AIX architecture manager at the time) during the development of the original JFS (for AIX 3.1 on the first RS/6000s). Its design and implementation were largely the result of the efforts of a single person (Al Chang) from IBM research, who was also the primary designer/developer for the VM system for AIX 3.1. Consequently, the JFS code was designed to take advantage of the specific VM implementation (and the underlying RS/6000 VM hardware). This resulted in a rather unportable code base. Additionally, since it was derived from ATT (and BSD) filesystem code, there were some licensing issues. As I recall, these two issues (portability and license) were what lead to the reimplementation for OS/2 (I wasn't involved or even very familiar with that effort though). Bob -- Bob Willcox Boucher's Observation: [EMAIL PROTECTED] He who blows his own horn always plays the music Austin, TX several octaves higher than originally written. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Greg Lehey wrote: Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know if it will buy us anything. ? OK, I load the kernel from the JFS. I mount the root FS, which is a JFS. I read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can... Do you see the problem yet? It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high performance and maximum throughput... No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not the good AIX JFS code. That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so it's not as if it's second-rate. From what I've seen of the structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1. I haven't compared performance. None of the Web Connections RS/6000 machines ran this OS/2 derived code. I was under the impression that it was there for Linux compatability. My impression is, layout or not, the original JFS is much better code, overall. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Terry Lambert wrote: Greg Lehey wrote: Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know if it will buy us anything. ? OK, I load the kernel from the JFS. I mount the root FS, which is a JFS. I read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can... Do you see the problem yet? Libstand (and hence the loader) could be extended to allow reading files from jfs without using any GPL'ed code. For example our loader can load modules from the FAT even though we do not have any M$ code. :) Alternatively, /boot could be placed on separate filesystem, which could be ufs or anything else supported by the loader. -Maxim It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high performance and maximum throughput... No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not the good AIX JFS code. That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so it's not as if it's second-rate. From what I've seen of the structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1. I haven't compared performance. None of the Web Connections RS/6000 machines ran this OS/2 derived code. I was under the impression that it was there for Linux compatability. My impression is, layout or not, the original JFS is much better code, overall. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Terry Lambert wrote: Greg Lehey wrote: Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know if it will buy us anything. ? OK, I load the kernel from the JFS. I mount the root FS, which is a JFS. I read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can... Do you see the problem yet? It is not a problem. The *kernel* does not load jfs.ko, it is loader itself. There is no reason why a trivial non-gpl jfs reader couldn't be written for boot2 and loader if the need was great enough. Or have /boot as a seperate file system (eg: UFS or FAT32). We do this on IA64 where /boot is a FAT32 filesystem (not exactly, but close enough. I usually mount it on /efi and make /boot/ a symlink to /efi/boot so that in EFI we have a /boot as well). Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Maxim Sobolev wrote: OK, I load the kernel from the JFS. I mount the root FS, which is a JFS. I read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module jfs.ko from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can... Do you see the problem yet? Libstand (and hence the loader) could be extended to allow reading files from jfs without using any GPL'ed code. For example our loader can load modules from the FAT even though we do not have any M$ code. :) Alternatively, /boot could be placed on separate filesystem, which could be ufs or anything else supported by the loader. Patches appreciated. Note that if you do a read-only JFS, you are more than half way there to a n0n-GPL'ed implementation, so you might as well finish it off, instead of porting the IBM code. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Peter Wemm wrote: It is not a problem. The *kernel* does not load jfs.ko, it is loader itself. There is no reason why a trivial non-gpl jfs reader couldn't be written for boot2 and loader if the need was great enough. Or have /boot as a seperate file system (eg: UFS or FAT32). We do this on IA64 where /boot is a FAT32 filesystem (not exactly, but close enough. I usually mount it on /efi and make /boot/ a symlink to /efi/boot so that in EFI we have a /boot as well). JFS patches? Sysinstall patches? /usr/src/lib/stand patches? /usr/src/sys/boot/* patches? 8^). --- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Hiten Pandya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... As long as nobody gets the idea to import VxFS... It's dog slow compared to UFS+softupdates. :-) Dog slow even compared to Solaris 8 UFS+logging. Of course, i know it has other advantages, but the journalling feature doesn't seem to be the best. Even my notebook with its slooow (low-power) IDE drive is faster than Solaris 8 fibre-channel disks running with VxFS. ;-) (faster means in terms of filesystem metadata operation, like file creations and deletions, since that's the area you normally want to employ journalling or softupdates for.) -- cheers, Jorg .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:27:54PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote: Hiten Pandya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... As long as nobody gets the idea to import VxFS... It's dog slow compared to UFS+softupdates. :-) Dog slow even compared to [This is directed at Joerg, but I deleted the original email. URL is wrapped with a \.] http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/general\ /full_papers/seltzer/seltzer_html/index.html -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 02:07:40PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:27:54PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote: Hiten Pandya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... As long as nobody gets the idea to import VxFS... It's dog slow compared to UFS+softupdates. :-) Dog slow even compared to [This is directed at Joerg, but I deleted the original email. ^ not URL is wrapped with a \.] http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/general\ /full_papers/seltzer/seltzer_html/index.html -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 1:08:23 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: Greg Lehey wrote: FS porting to FreeBSD is actually pretty trivial(*), though some transactioning changes to the FreeBSD VFS layer consumers (the system calls and NFS server code) would be necessary to make the journal roll-back function correctly, following a failure. (*) Trivial: meaning grunt work is required; not necessarily an indicator of the amount of work, only the intellectual effort required for the job Considering that the current UFS implementation didn't need to be ported, and people are still working on the details, I think that this is a highly misleading statement. The current UFS has a number of issues which make it non-trivial; it was, in effect, a port; here is the short list: snip Live code always has issues, particularly if you are trying to pound a round peg into a square hole (hence Kirk taking up the task of a redesign). Of course. But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has been with BSD since the beginning. There is a similar list of items for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD. I think that everyone saying Ut oh! SCARY! gives people the wrong idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I suppose is what you mean when you say where are the patches?. As I said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD. On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 2:26:45 -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote: [... Hiten want's to GPL'ify FreeBSD ...] hi, first of all, i would like to clear of some point which have been taken wrongly. o My Intentions were never to GPL'ify FreeBSD :-) Agreed, I don't think anybody thought that. o The reason i started this discussion was because i think JFS/JFS2 would be a nice addition to FreeBSD like the rest of the other filesystems. o The JFS does _not_ have to be root, and even if people were to download it because it is GPL'ed, the size of the filesystem is only around 1.0MB If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root file system too. o It is hard to Port AIX or OS/2 based code, but we have to agree that, BSD Users were meant to take that kind of challenges, have taken before It's probably easier to port AIX based code than OS/2 or Linux based code. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Greg Lehey wrote: Of course. But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has been with BSD since the beginning. There is a similar list of items for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD. I maintain that the FreeBSD UFS *is* a port of the Heidemann implementation from the FICUS project, which had to be done because certain files were claimed to be contaminated with USL IP, and were removed as part of the USL/UCB settlement (6 key files from 5 subsystems, which they thought we couldn't rewrite from scratch in time to be a competitive threat). I also maintain that the most difficult thing is getting the list of items, and, with the information from the UFS work in hand, the JFS specific items not on that list are trivial (there are exactly two items, in fact: log roll forward/backward, and transaction abort). I think that everyone saying Ut oh! SCARY! gives people the wrong idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I suppose is what you mean when you say where are the patches?. As I said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD. I ported the entire GFS user space tools set, sans two, to FreeBSD in about 2 hours. If FreeBSD had the necessary hardware drivers for shared disks, I would have finished the two that I didn't do, and then I would have gone to Frys, bought the necessary controllers, disk, and two scratch boxes, and finished porting the whole damn thing. I think I could have it all up and running in about 4 weeks, assuming the Linux implementation actually works for more than one machine, and my test machines were configured dual boot for Linux/FreeBSD. Unlike IBM, the GFS people have indicated a willingness to bend on the license issue. When I say trivial, I mean trivial, as the term is used in physics or mathematics: a well understood operation that can be performed rote, and does not require significant original thinking to perform. When I say where are the patches? I mean that's an incredibly stupid idea, given the license, and you aren't going to get me to do that work without paying me, so you might as well send patches -- do the work yourself -- because you are going to have a hell of a time getting buy-in from anyone clued enough to do the work for you. If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root file system too. Only, you will never be able to build a firewall, router, or other product that ships with it statically linked into the kernel, since that would violate the terms of the GPL (additional restrictions, and linked code not being GPL'ed). What good is the damn thing, if the only people who can use it are big site admins who build their own kernels, and never expect to sell their company to anyone (or are prepared to recompile all the kernels on all their machines, should the company ever sell, since they can't transfer ownership of a FreeBSD kernel with GPL'ed code in it directly, without violating the license)? RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions, I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your decision. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
I think I would rather see people tweaking the heck out of the existing UFS filesystem and implementing new ways of getting it to go faster. Implementing a whole new filesystem would probably take a lot of work, and the performance wouldn't be much better anyways. IMHO, people interested in making a filesystem faster should stick with UFS. FreeBSD should not do what Linux does, which is make a whole bunch of different filesystems that all suck in a different way. This is an opinion and should be taken as such, not an insult to those that like the whole JFS idea. -Craig _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 19:42:30 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: Greg Lehey wrote: Of course. But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has been with BSD since the beginning. There is a similar list of items for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD. I maintain that the FreeBSD UFS *is* a port of the Heidemann implementation from the FICUS project, which had to be done because certain files were claimed to be contaminated with USL IP, and were removed as part of the USL/UCB settlement (6 key files from 5 subsystems, which they thought we couldn't rewrite from scratch in time to be a competitive threat). Which files? Did they require adapting to a different environment? I also maintain that the most difficult thing is getting the list of items, and, with the information from the UFS work in hand, the JFS specific items not on that list are trivial (there are exactly two items, in fact: log roll forward/backward, and transaction abort). I'd expect these to be the easiest parts, since they don't have too much to do with the rest of the system. One of the issues with Linux is that the interface to the rest of the system, and I don't expect these parts to have much interfacing to do. I think that everyone saying Ut oh! SCARY! gives people the wrong idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I suppose is what you mean when you say where are the patches?. As I said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD. I ported the entire GFS user space tools set, sans two, to FreeBSD in about 2 hours. I expect the user space tools for JFS2 to be pretty straightforward too. If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root file system too. Only, you will never be able to build a firewall, router, or other product that ships with it statically linked into the kernel, since that would violate the terms of the GPL (additional restrictions, and linked code not being GPL'ed). Fine, so we load the module. What's your point? What good is the damn thing, if the only people who can use it are ... Well, I suppose it'll still be good for them. Maybe. RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions, I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your decision. You want me personally to get him to agree that loading modules at boot time does not violate the GPL? Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:01:53PM -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote: hi all, this is a wild idea...suggestion... i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... Hi Hiten, Search the mail list archives (from www.freebsd.org) for JFS and XFS. You'll see that there have been many discussions about this over the last few years. Joe msg32901/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] Long-short syndrome in first message. On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 14:01:53 -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote: hi all, this is a wild idea...suggestion... i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into src/gnu/ Well, JFS was developed by IBM for AIX. If you look at the header files, it is clearly derived from UFS. They later developed a completely new file system, JFS2, for OS/2, and later ported this version to Linux. It's also available for AIX, but the standard AIX file system is still the old JFS1. It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high performance and maximum throughput... I don't think the zSeries (System/390) runs JFS. As I said above, the RS/6000 uses a different JFS file system. On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:39:35 -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote: * Hiten Pandya [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011210 16:02] wrote: hi all, this is a wild idea...suggestion... i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into src/gnu/ It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high performance and maximum throughput... I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature. The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated than just dumping it into src/gnu. Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know when you're done. I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits), and have had this on my TODO list for a while. Well, I'm gainfully employed by IBM, both for FreeBSD and JFS. I've thought (and spoken) about this from time to time. It would be a lot of work. The licence issue is a real sticky point, especially since the GPL and BSD licences are like oil and water. Because of the GPL licence, JFS support can never become part of the GENERIC kernel, and any related support tools will have to exist as separate binaries (newfs.jfs, fsck.jfs), as is currently done with the EXT2FS filesystem. As others have pointed out, this is a detail. The real question is: will JFS2 buy anything? The only real way to find out is to try it. On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:47:11 -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote: I'm no expert on journaled filesystems, but isn't the freebsd softupdates option similar? No, at least not from a technical standpoint. From a user standpoint, they both try to make things faster and more reliable, but they do it in very different ways. perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer options SOFTERUPDATES as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs? And what would that do? Greg -- When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the original text. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 10:56:17 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:39:35 -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote: * Hiten Pandya [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011210 16:02] wrote: hi all, this is a wild idea...suggestion... i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into src/gnu/ It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high performance and maximum throughput... I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature. The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated than just dumping it into src/gnu. Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know when you're done. I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits), and have had this on my TODO list for a while. Well, I'm gainfully employed by IBM, both for FreeBSD and JFS. I've thought (and spoken) about this from time to time. It would be a lot of work. BTW, if anybody wants to do it anyway, let me know. I'm in a position to help with information, though possibly not with coding. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Greg Lehey wrote: On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:47:11 -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote: perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer options SOFTERUPDATES as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs? And what would that do? SOFTERUPDATES includes a switch to diffused gallery lighting and enhanced mood music. For the hacker in touch with his feminine side, it offers the ultimate in warm fuzzies. Brandon D. Valentine -- Iam mens praetrepidans avet vagari. - G. Valerius Catullus, Carmina, XLVI To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:47:11 -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote: I'm no expert on journaled filesystems, but isn't the freebsd softupdates option similar? No, at least not from a technical standpoint. From a user standpoint, they both try to make things faster and more reliable, but they do it in very different ways. Well, perhaps I should have made that clearer: I am not an expert on either journaled filesystems not am I an expert on FreeBSD's softupdates option, technically or other. perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer options SOFTERUPDATES as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs? And what would that do? My thoughts were that if the two were similar in effect that it might be a relatively easy project to escalate towards achieving the same effects in one as the other. I understand that this is not necessarily the case. Greg -Anthony. msg32923/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Hiten Pandya wrote: i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... Not unless you have plans. When I was an IBM employee, they would not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts. I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up. It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high performance and maximum throughput... No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not the good AIX JFS code. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 22:45:22 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: Hiten Pandya wrote: i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD... Not unless you have plans. When I was an IBM employee, they would not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts. I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up. Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know if it will buy us anything. It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high performance and maximum throughput... No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not the good AIX JFS code. That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so it's not as if it's second-rate. From what I've seen of the structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1. I haven't compared performance. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
