Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!card From: card@masi.ibp.fr (Remy CARD) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Linux or FreeBSD? Date: 31 May 1994 07:13:13 GMT Organization: Laboratoire MASI - Universite Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris - France Lines: 61 Message-ID: <2seo29$5c5@vishnu.jussieu.fr> References: <CqH2z7.29E@dit.upm.es> <2s8mbn$e1o@acmex.gatech.edu> <JKH.94May29030102@whisker.hubbard.ie> <2s937t$7sp@acmex.gatech.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ares.ibp.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In article <2s937t$7sp@acmex.gatech.edu>, Robert Sanders <gt8134b@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: ] jkh@whisker.hubbard.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes: ] ] >In article <2s8mbn$e1o@acmex.gatech.edu> gt8134b@prism.gatech.edu (Robert Sanders) writes: ] ] > were a bad thing. For your information, I've lost filesystems twice, both ] > times due to bad disks; Linux's ext2fs has proven very reliable for me. ] ] >I'm sure that ext2fs has improved immeasurably since it first came ] >out, but just to note that some of its well-deserved suspicions have ] >come from early instability and the fact that one little f**kup could ] >generally cost you major chunks of your filesystem! If it's since ] >come along to the point where its stability ranks up there with FFS, ] >that's great, but also acknowledge that some people who've known it ] >for awhile have every right to be suspicious until it's really earned ] >its stripes. I'm sure that the first ALPHA release of FFS in BSD used to be as unreliable as my ext2fs first versions :-). FFS is older than ext2fs and has been in use for years (ext2fs is only 16 months old) so it was mature before ext2fs. This said, both filesystems are now stable and reliable, I think. ] Well, this caveat could apply to all of Linux; none if it was very stable ] until fairly recently (in UNIX time). I'm talking about the here and ] now, and ext2fs in versions 1.0 and later is a *very* stable filesystem. ] ] I've been using ext2fs since the very first ALPHA release. I know how ] unstable it used to be, but believe me, it's fine now. Hmmm, remember ext2fs 0.1 which was released just one day after ext2fs 0.0 before 0.0 contained so many critical bugs ? ;-) ] > If you want to impress me with filesystem stability, show me BSD 4.4's ] > log-structured filesystem running under FreeBSD. ] ] >If that's what it will take, then all I can say is wait about, say, ] >8-10 weeks or so for the first ALPHA snapshot of FreeBSD 2.0 :-) ] ] I can't wait. I'd like some of the BSD4.4 magic to filter over into ] Linux. We should all benefit from the CSRG's dying breath. I agree. Linux and *BSD should benefit from each other. While I have chosen to write ext2fs instead of porting FFS to Linux (there were some technical problems because Linux's and *BSD's VFS are quite different and the legal status of BSD source was unclear at this time), I have often refered to FFS as a source of inspiration (OK, some ideas in ext2fs are my own and some others originated from other Linux hackers, but the two filesystems have lots of things in common). As soon as I have access to the 4.4-Lite LFS code (either from the *BSD-current code or from 4.4-Lite itself if I can find a way to access it), I'll study it and try to port it to Linux. ] -- ] _g, '96 --->>>>>>>>>> gt8134b@prism.gatech.edu <<<<<<<<<--- CompSci ,g_ ] W@@@W__ |-\ ^ | disclaimer: <---> "Bow before ZOD!" __W@@@W ] W@@@@**~~~' ro|-<ert s/_\ nders | who am I??? ^ from Superman '~~~**@@@@W ] `*MV' hi,ocie! |-/ad! / \ss!! | ooga ooga!! | II (cool)! `VW*' Remy