Linked by Joel Dahl on Sun 25th Apr 2010 19:25 UTC
FreeBSD Today Jeff Roberson committed his patches to FreeBSD 9 for adding journaling to UFS. No more background fsck after unclean shutdowns! This is a major landmark in the history of UFS, with 11000 new lines of code (and about 2000 removed). Much of the work was done in collaboration with Kirk McKusick, the original author of FFS and Softupdates, under sponsorship form Yahoo!, Juniper and iXsystems. Jeff's blog contains quite a lot of technical information of his work. There's also information on the FreeBSD mailing lists.
Order by: Score:
UFS?
by kragil on Sun 25th Apr 2010 20:27 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

I thought ZFS was FreeBSDs future?
I guess having something that won't demand huge amounts of resources is good to have and it is cool to see that FreeBSD has catched up with Ext3 in the journaling department.
I like FreeBSDs RAID1 implementation, it does duplexing really well (not like Linux).

Reply Score: 2

RE: UFS?
by diegocg on Sun 25th Apr 2010 20:47 UTC in reply to "UFS?"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

ZFS is and at the same time isn't the FreeBSD future. It isn't because of the license. ZFS is licensed under the CDDL. The BSD people have been rewritting GNU userspace tools only because of the license, so having a non-BSD filesystem (the heart of a unix OS) is certainly something they don't like a lot. Also, while ZFS is cool, it can make FBSD users wonder - "hey, and why not use opensolaris instead"

But, at the same time, ZFS is the future of FreeBSD, because it's the only filesystem that keeps FreeBSD as a good server OS in many workloads.

IMO FreeBSD should consider seriously a substitute for UFS (maybe hammer?).

Edited 2010-04-25 20:51 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: UFS?
by marcp on Sun 25th Apr 2010 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE: UFS?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

That's right, BSD people don't like messy licences [in an OS base], but that applies specifically to OpenBSD. FreeBSD and NetBSD tend to care less for licensing.

I don't think that *BSD FS needs to be replaced by anything. It's one of the most rock-solid [and proven by many years] FS I've ever used and I used/am using quite a lot of FSs [not a single data loss on UFS/FFS. ext2/3, NTFS made it couple of times].

Edited 2010-04-25 23:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: UFS?
by strcpy on Mon 26th Apr 2010 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: UFS?"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


I don't think that *BSD FS needs to be replaced by anything. It's one of the most rock-solid [and proven by many years] FS I've ever used and I used/am using quite a lot of FSs [not a single data loss on UFS/FFS. ext2/3, NTFS made it couple of times].


It is solid. But the one you admire, OpenBSD, doesn't even support journaling....

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: UFS?
by marcp on Mon 26th Apr 2010 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: UFS?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

You know, when it comes to OpenBSD, it doesn't matter how many unproven 'features' OS has. It's all about stability and security here ;)
And yes - I am using OpenBSD among other OSs and it performs very well on its default FS.
Needless to say I don't need journaling at all, mostly because of its nature - it simply makes my data more vulnerable to loss and - as some of other posters have said - it doesn't really make that much difference [ca. 1 min? not much, honestly].

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: UFS?
by Matty on Mon 26th Apr 2010 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: UFS?"
Matty Member since:
2009-11-03

"I have done some fsck benchmarking. I recovered an 80% full 250gb volume that was doing a buildworld with 8 parallel processes in .9 seconds. The traditional fsck took 24 minutes."

http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/

ever fsck couple of TB?

Edited 2010-04-26 12:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: UFS?
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 26th Apr 2010 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: UFS?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

explain how journaling makes data more vulnrable to loss.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: UFS?
by marcp on Mon 26th Apr 2010 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: UFS?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

I was describing my own 'adventures' with ext3 mounted in compat mode as ext2. It destroyed my data.
Let's hope UFS journaling will work a whole lot better.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: UFS?
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 28th Apr 2010 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: UFS?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

so... a compatability mode of a file system destroyed your data, not journaling.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: UFS?
by nt_jerkface on Mon 26th Apr 2010 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE: UFS?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

ZFS is and at the same time isn't the FreeBSD future. It isn't because of the license. ZFS is licensed under the CDDL.


No I think their issue is with how included GPL software restricts the usage of FreeBSD. GPL 3 has requirements for hardware companies that FreeBSD developers have never supported.


Also, while ZFS is cool, it can make FBSD users wonder - "hey, and why not use opensolaris instead"


Not anymore with Oracle at the helm. The future of OpenSolaris is uncertain and at most Oracle will provide minimal funding for p.r. reasons. OpenSolaris could get the axe at any moment which makes FreeBSD a much safer choice. Any fork of OpenSolaris would likely stagnate. OpenSolaris will attract few developers when its best features have already been ported to FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: UFS?
by Kebabbert on Mon 26th Apr 2010 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: UFS?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"The future of OpenSolaris is uncertain and at most Oracle will provide minimal funding for p.r. reasons. OpenSolaris could get the axe at any moment"

That is not true. Oracle has officially stated it's continued support for OpenSolaris. In the future, OpenSolaris will be like Fedora, and Solaris will be like RedHat. Both will be developed, and none will be axed. Oracle/Sun competitors are spreading the FUD extensively, please stop it because it is not true.
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3867771/OpenSolar...


Let's face it, the most innovative operating system that everyone wants to copy is Solaris. In the future, the development pace will not stop. It will continue. In my opinion, Solaris is most innovative today.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: UFS?
by nt_jerkface on Mon 26th Apr 2010 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: UFS?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Oracle has officially stated it's continued support for OpenSolaris. In the future, OpenSolaris will be like Fedora, and Solaris will be like RedHat. Both will be developed, and none will be axed. Oracle/Sun competitors are spreading the FUD extensively, please stop it because it is not true.


Oh FUD huh? So does this look like a supportive move?
http://www.katonda.com/blog/1058/oracle-puts-another-nail-open-sola...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: UFS?
by Kebabbert on Mon 26th Apr 2010 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: UFS?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

So because Oracle is not offering OpenSolaris CDs for free shipment anymore, it means Oracle is killing OpenSolaris? Are you serious? Jesus.

You can download OpenSolaris CD for free. So Oracle made other decisions than Sun, how to distribute OpenSolaris. That means nothing. Oracle has officially and publicly stated that OpenSolaris will continue. You know that, and if you still tells everyone that OpenSolaris will be killed - then it is FUD.

I heard that RedHat has changed fonts in their manual to a smaller one - that must mean that RedHat is going to be killed. I know that RedHat is officially supporting Linux, but hey, what they say offically means nothing, right? It must mean that RedHat is probably killing Linux and migrating to OpenSolaris.

Oracle says something, you write that Oracle is telling the opposite. That is pure FUD.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: UFS?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 27th Apr 2010 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: UFS?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

So because Oracle is not offering OpenSolaris CDs for free shipment anymore, it means Oracle is killing OpenSolaris? Are you serious? Jesus.


I didn't claim it was proof that they are killing OpenSolaris. The author wrote that. But it is a very bad sign.


You can download OpenSolaris CD for free. So Oracle made other decisions than Sun, how to distribute OpenSolaris. That means nothing.


Oracle has 17.5 billion in cash in the bank. Yes in the bank.

How much was the OpenSolaris CD program costing them? I doubt it costs more than a thousand dollars a year. The fact that they are cutting pennies here speaks volumes. OpenSolaris is not an important project to them.



Oracle has officially and publicly stated that OpenSolaris will continue.


My God you really have no idea as to who bought Sun. These are not pony-tailed hippies that will continue funding pet projects just because they're open source. OpenOffice at least makes sense to fund as a long play against MS but OpenSolaris is really looking like an unwanted stepchild.

Larry is wise enough to not outright kill a project like OpenSolaris. The tech press would portray him as anti-open source. If anything he'll slowly defund it by diverting resources to Solaris.


Oracle says something, you write that Oracle is telling the opposite. That is pure FUD.


OpenSolaris is going nowhere and at best can hope to be a testing ground for new Solaris technologies. FreeBSD has never looked better in comparison and anyone who invests in OpenSolaris at this point deserves their fate.

Oh and here's some more of that wonderful support the OpenSolaris team is getting:
http://www.businessweek.com/idg/2010-04-15/opensolaris-leaders-unne...

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: UFS?
by Kebabbert on Tue 27th Apr 2010 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: UFS?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

I didn't claim it was proof that they are killing OpenSolaris. The author wrote that. But it is a very bad sign.

Bad sign for what? Are you serious? Oracle changed distribution channel for OpenSolaris, so what? Oracle changed logo from Sun to Oracle, isnt that also a very bad sign? I heard that Larry had a hair cut from a mediocre saloon, isnt that a very bad sign? Because Larry is very rich, if he doesnt use the most expensive saloon, it must mean the expensive saloon is going bankrupt, yes?

Lots of authors are pro-Linux and they loathe Solaris. They take every chance to spread FUD about Solaris. I count you to that camp. You dont even have nothing of substance to base your FUD on. Sun did things the Sun way, Oracle does things the Oracle way. Now Oracle is changing Sun to the Oracle way, and that change is a sign of OpenSolaris is slowly getting killed? FUD, or what?


How much was the OpenSolaris CD program costing them? I doubt it costs more than a thousand dollars a year. The fact that they are cutting pennies here speaks volumes. OpenSolaris is not an important project to them.

Just because Sun distributed OpenSolaris CDs, it doesnt mean that Oracle must do it the same way. Maybe Oracle never distributed CDs, ever? Then what? If Oracle uses SAP for business, and Sun used some other company, is it a bad sign that Oracle only wants SAP? Jesus.


... but OpenSolaris is really looking like an unwanted stepchild.

Do you have any proof or is just your wish?


OpenSolaris is going nowhere and at best can hope to be a testing ground for new Solaris technologies.

Jesus. OpenSolaris IS a testing ground for new Solaris technology. That is the outspoken PURPOSE of OpenSolaris and has always been. I wrote that OpenSolaris is similar to Fedora, and Solaris is similar to RedHat. Good that you finally understand the purpose of OpenSolaris at last, though.

After the bugs in new functionality have been ironed out, OpenSolaris functionality gets backported to Solaris. For instance, ZFS arrived first to OpenSolaris, then it got backported to Solaris.

It would be very dumb to kill OpenSolaris, and use Solaris both as a test ground and in production. First you need to iron out bugs. You never do that in production. To spread word that OpenSolaris will be killed in a couple of years is just: FUD. But it is true that OpenSolaris is a testing ground, please say that, instead of pure FUD.


FreeBSD has never looked better in comparison and anyone who invests in OpenSolaris at this point deserves their fate.

Good for FreeBSD and congrats to the FreeBSD team. FreeBSD is a very good OS, yes. Much better than Linux. If there were no OpenSolaris, I would have used FreeBSD, without a doubt. In the future more of Solaris technology will be ported to FreeBSD, making it even better. The brilliant Solaris engineers are not resting.


Oh and here's some more of that wonderful support the OpenSolaris team is getting:
http://www.businessweek.com/idg/2010-04-15/opensolaris-leaders-unne...

So what? Sun had a roadmap and spoke publicly about it, Oracle is silent until they release (just like Apple). It is just different policy.

Look, Oracle does things differently, it is not a sign of OpenSolaris is getting killed. Especially when Oracle officially supports OpenSolaris. When you gladly jump on every anti-Solaris article you are just helping the FUD.

Maybe a strong OpenSolaris is in your interest too. How else would FreeBSD get new cool innovative technology? From the Linux camp? They are just copy cats, and have produced nothing innovative. BTRFS is a ZFS wannabe. DTrace also has Linux copies. etc. Sun contributed more open source than any other company. Without Suns contributions, the world would look differently.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: UFS?
by phoenix on Mon 26th Apr 2010 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE: UFS?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

ZFS is and at the same time isn't the FreeBSD future. It isn't because of the license. ZFS is licensed under the CDDL. The BSD people have been rewritting GNU userspace tools only because of the license, so having a non-BSD filesystem (the heart of a unix OS) is certainly something they don't like a lot.


Uhm, what? BSD projects don't like the GPL. There's nothing wrong with the CDDL, which is why a lot of OSol tech has made it's way into FreeBSD. There's no "everything must be BSD-licensed" mantra in the BSD projects. There's just an unspoken "let's avoid the GPL" motto.

Also, while ZFS is cool, it can make FBSD users wonder - "hey, and why not use opensolaris instead"


Why use something completely foreign when one can use all the management tools and frameworks (like GEOM) that you are familiar with?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: UFS?
by Laurence on Mon 26th Apr 2010 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE: UFS?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Also, while ZFS is cool, it can make FBSD users wonder - "hey, and why not use opensolaris instead"

I'd have thought the reverse was true. If FreeBSD didn't have ZFS then some FreeBSD users might consider OpenSolaris.

FreeBSD is a very different beast to OpenSolaris - so I couldn't see FreeBSD users (ie users that would otherwise be happy with FBSD) migrating to OpenSolaris unless it was for some features they felt they needed but FreeBSD didn't offer

I know everyones computer requirements differ, but for me ZFS would be a major selling point in my returning to FreeBSD. Unfortunately I've not felt persuaded about the stability of FBSDs current implementation

Reply Score: 3

RE: UFS?
by Jago on Sun 25th Apr 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to "UFS?"
Jago Member since:
2009-09-18

I thought ZFS was FreeBSDs future?

ZFS is the future of FreeBSD amd64 systems with at least 2gb RAM, preferably 4. However, there are still a fair amount of i386 systems out there or amd64 systems with less than 2gb RAM. For these users, the only option is UFS and journaling softupdates are great news for these people, considering how fragile UFS can be under certain circumstances.

Now I wish someone did extensive performance and reliability comparisons between gjournal and the new journaled softupdates. The big advantage of the latter is the ease with with they can be turned on/off on an existing running system.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: UFS?
by Mr.Manatane on Mon 26th Apr 2010 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE: UFS?"
RE[3]: UFS?
by aargh on Mon 26th Apr 2010 07:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: UFS?"
aargh Member since:
2009-10-12

I modded you down as a troll because without providing any examples or links that's what you are.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: UFS?
by Mr.Manatane on Mon 26th Apr 2010 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: UFS?"
RE[5]: UFS?
by marcp on Mon 26th Apr 2010 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: UFS?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

The fact is that ZFS eats a whole bunch of memory. Don't know about disk I/O, this might be true in some cases.
I really don't think your comment should ever be modded down just because you added "ZFS sucks" in your comment. It's obvious, that it sucks to YOU. Maybe you shouldn't have use a stron language, or maybe the guy who modded you down should reconsider his participation in public discussions.

Regards to all

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: UFS?
by Mr.Manatane on Mon 26th Apr 2010 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: UFS?"
Mr.Manatane Member since:
2010-03-19

The fact is that ZFS eats a whole bunch of memory. Don't know about disk I/O, this might be true in some cases.
I really don't think your comment should ever be modded down just because you added "ZFS sucks" in your comment. It's obvious, that it sucks to YOU. Maybe you shouldn't have use a stron language, or maybe the guy who modded you down should reconsider his participation in public discussions.

Regards to all

Well, you usually use this langage when you spent night and day on sun craps and that somebody tell you that it's not true ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: UFS?
by Kebabbert on Mon 26th Apr 2010 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: UFS?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"first, try to use it with high level of I/O and not you the computer under your bed ..."

You have to configure ZFS differently than other file systems. ZFS is not perfect, but you need to know what you are doing.

It is well known that all raid solutions have trouble achieving high IOPS, but it is possible to circumvent that problem with ZFS. One way is to use SSD as a ZFS cache. Then you can reach good performance, for instance CIFS ~3GB/sec over a 40GBit NIC and 300.000 IOPS. This ZFS server is basically a bunch of SATA 7200 and SSD and quad core CPUs running OpenSolaris + ZFS:

http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/iscsi_before_and_after



Sure, you can not remove a disc. It may be a problem. But many Enterprise companies are mostly interested in adding storage capacity.



Copy-On-Write fragments discs, yes. But ZFS takes measures to minimize it. It collects data until 7/8 of RAM is full, or 30 seconds have passed - before writing all data in one go. That minimizes fragmentation. Hence, lots of RAM is preferable for a ZFS file server. ZFS is mostly targeted for Enterprise companies. If you have less RAM and less needs, then other file systems may be better for your needs.



The only way to detect that a disc is corrupted is when ZFS tries to access the data - how is that bad? How can ZFS work differently? How can a filesystem know that data is corrupted, without even trying to access the data? Of course you need to access the data first, to see that it is corrupted! Otherwise it would be magic. This applies both for ZFS mirrors or ZFS raids. You need to access the data first, to see that it is corrupted. If you think ZFS mirrors sucks, then also ZFS raid sucks - because ZFS raid also requires you to first access the data to see if it is corrupted.



I get the impression that you are not handling ZFS correctly. I mean, you talk about small issues, but dont even mention ZFS biggest advantage, which no other normal file systems offer. That is the ONLY single reason to use ZFS. I am quite sure you dont even know what advantage I am talking about...

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: UFS?
by Mr.Manatane on Tue 27th Apr 2010 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: UFS?"
Mr.Manatane Member since:
2010-03-19

dude. Are you serious ?

You are taking a Sun blog to back up that ZFS is cool.

You are joking right ?

What I learnt from Sun since Solaris 10 is not to believe their words...

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: UFS?
by Kebabbert on Tue 27th Apr 2010 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: UFS?"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

dude. Are you serious ?
You are taking a Sun blog to back up that ZFS is cool.
You are joking right ?

No, I am showing the Sun blog to show that ZFS can reach extreme performance and IO. You claim that is impossible with ZFS:
first, try to use [ZFS] with high level of I/O and not you the computer under your bed ...

I am only disproving your claim with my link. Or, do you doubt the performance numbers quoted in that blog? They are lies?


What I learnt from Sun since Solaris 10 is not to believe their words...

This is actually interesting. Could you explain more on this? Sun has been lying to you? In what way?


And I believe that Sun support experts are not handling ZFS correctly too because they never solved our problems ...

This is also interesting. You claim that Sun hasnt been able to solve your problems? Is it true? What was your problems?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: UFS?
by Mr.Manatane on Tue 27th Apr 2010 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: UFS?"
Mr.Manatane Member since:
2010-03-19

[quote]I get the impression that you are not handling ZFS correctly. I mean, you talk about small issues, but dont even mention ZFS biggest advantage, which no other normal file systems offer. That is the ONLY single reason to use ZFS. I am quite sure you dont even know what advantage I am talking about...[/quote]
Yeah, it must be that. And I believe that Sun support experts are not handling ZFS correctly too because they never solved our problems ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: UFS?
by phoenix on Tue 27th Apr 2010 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: UFS?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

you CAN'T remove a disk. No problem you say ? I say no. Try to migrate your LUN from one bay to another and you are doomed. Try to consolidate your LUNs with less and bigger one ? You can't. And don't tell me it's coming, they are saying that since 5 years now ...


Very few RAID controllers (I haven't personally seen one that does) allow you to remove disks from an array. Why should software RAID be any different?

copy-on-write fragment the filesystem over the time and guess what ? You can't do anything about it. No tool (and prefetch don't do it for high I/O).


Not yet. But there is work underway to fix this.

ZFS just kill your san: our storage team told us it was eating 30% of the total I/O only for one host.


And ... you can prove 100% that it is ZFS doing the I/O and not the applications running on top?

Mirroring with ZFS is crap. ZFS only knows that a mirror is corrupted when it tries to access the data and it will only correct the corrupted data he tries to access. (great no ? what just happens if you lose the good one ?).


A hardware RAID controller doesn't know data is bad until it reads the data, or runs an auto-verify in the background. Just like ZFS, which can run a scrub in the background. In fact, nothing in the world can tell a block of data is corrupt without first trying to read it. At least with ZFS, the corrupted data can be detected and re-written automatically. A hardware RAID array just notes that the sector is bad.

The only way to detect that the disk is corrupted if you don't access this data is to use scrub, which kill you disks / san (cf over).


And the only way for a hardware RAID controller to detect that a disk is corrupt is to run an auto-verify in the backgroun, which either kills your I/O or takes forever, depending on the settings on the controller.

And yes it happens to lose a good disk and then it came back (ie you lose a path on a san). Now to resync your disk you have remove it and take it back, but it has to resync everything from scratch...


No, it only re-silvers the data. ZFS doesn't re-silver empty space. In comparison to hardware RAID controllers that have to sync every block of the new drive, regardless of whether it's in use or not (the controller doesn't know the details of the data on disk).

And I don't speak about ZFS cache problems we had, and the problems we got with those crappy solaris zones...


Can't comment on Solaris Zones. Never used Solaris.

However, it sounds to me like you don't really understand how ZFS works, and have been trying to use it like a hardware RAID setup. Which is just wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE: UFS?
by marcp on Sun 25th Apr 2010 23:17 UTC in reply to "UFS?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

You know, not everyone uses ZFS. IMHO it's more suitable for the servers. As the legacy of sun comes the heavy memory footprint, which isn't a good thing for the desktops. Besides: this contribution will be - probobly - adopted to other BSDs as well [although I don't think it's a good idea, as journaling makes your data more vulnerable].

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: UFS?
by sakeniwefu on Sun 25th Apr 2010 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE: UFS?"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

If I understand the blog posts("Come Play, My Lord.") this is not actually storing any data on the journal but recording a few of the corner cases not covered by softupdates.

The real question is if this is needed. You are sacrificing overall performance for very little gain. You only have boot once after a forceful shutdown. A minute more or less won't make a difference IMO.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: UFS?
by phoenix on Mon 26th Apr 2010 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE: UFS?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Besides: this contribution will be - probobly - adopted to other BSDs as well [although I don't think it's a good idea, as journaling makes your data more vulnerable].


Matt Dillon has stated he doesn't want to update UFS in DFlyBSD, as things are nice and stable right now. Plus, UFS is really only used for /boot, with everything else being HAMMER.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: UFS?
by marcp on Mon 26th Apr 2010 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: UFS?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

I was actually thinking about NetBSD/OpenBSD. DFBSD stays unnoticed for most of the time [which is good IMHO. No hypes, just a solid work of DFBSD team].

Reply Score: 1

Steady as she goes
by Nitrodist on Sun 25th Apr 2010 22:31 UTC
Nitrodist
Member since:
2010-04-09

I guess someone could say about time but I think this really is great news. I suppose FreeBSD is going for incremental updates rather than any radical changes.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Beket_
by Beket_ on Mon 26th Apr 2010 04:47 UTC
Beket_
Member since:
2009-07-10

9,000 lines of code (although as Jeff says this number may be misleading if seen by itself only) is too much for a single feature, IMHO.

Kudos nonetheless.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Beket_
by Doc Pain on Mon 26th Apr 2010 10:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by Beket_"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

9,000 lines of code (although as Jeff says this number may be misleading if seen by itself only) is too much for a single feature, IMHO.


It's a complex feature. :-)

Anyway, consider that FreeBSD's source code is very tidy and well documented, so 9 kLOC don't seem that much if you take into mind that things like empty lines (for visual separation) or comment blocks (for explaination) also add to LOC.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Beket_
by phoenix on Mon 26th Apr 2010 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Beket_"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Especially when you consider the coding style, as outlined in style(9), where { and } are only separate lines by themselves, and if-statements are always multi-line.

LoC is really a useless, and pointless metric.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Beket_
by Beket_ on Mon 26th Apr 2010 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Beket_"
Beket_ Member since:
2009-07-10

It is useless when seen alone and not contrasted with the LOC count of another filesystem.

For example this is very illustrative IMHO:
http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock/entry/ufs_svm_vs_zfs_code

Or, compare freebsd softdeps (11K LOC) with freebsd gjournal (<5K LOC), or freebsd softdeps with netbsd wapbl (5K LOC).

And yes softdeps aren't the same as journaling, but they serve the same purpose ;)

Anyway, as I said kudos to the developer -- we will all be enjoying his contribution!

Cheers

Reply Score: 1

Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??
by circlomanen on Mon 26th Apr 2010 05:45 UTC
circlomanen
Member since:
2008-11-02

I cant understand why FreeBSD doesnt use Hammer instead of USF or ZFS? Hammer is BSD licens and more suitable for desktop use.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??
by Lazarus on Mon 26th Apr 2010 06:44 UTC in reply to "Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Hammer is also relatively new, and therefore has has much less testing than more mature filesystems for starters.

Furthermore Hammer as it is in DragonFly relies on a ton of changes made over years to the VFS layer alone and likely changes to many other kernel subsystems that have not occurred in FreeBSD as they were not needed by it and would thus need to be ported before any serious attempt to get Hammer working could get underway.

And before you mention the fuse ports of Hammer that exist for Linux and Mac OS X, realize that they are to allow read-only access to Hammer filesystems and are a few versions behind at any rate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??
by gnemmi on Mon 26th Apr 2010 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??"
gnemmi Member since:
2006-08-17

Hammer is also relatively new, and therefore has has much less testing than more mature filesystems for starters.


Hammer is in version 4 already and has been heavily commited ever since day 1.

ZFS is still one of the topics that causes the bulk of emails sent to @stable and @questions ...

Furthermore Hammer as it is in DragonFly relies on a ton of changes made over years to the VFS layer alone and likely changes to many other kernel subsystems that have not occurred in FreeBSD as they were not needed by it and would thus need to be ported before any serious attempt to get Hammer working could get underway.


Are you sure about that?
Try asking in hammer-request at lists.dragonflybsd.org .. People interested in porting HAMMER to other operating systems should contact Matthew Dillon at dillon at backplane.com

And before you mention the fuse ports of Hammer that exist for Linux and Mac OS X, realize that they are to allow read-only access to Hammer filesystems and are a few versions behind at any rate.


Even if it is opensource, Linux still has problems working with UFS .. I wouldn't count on Linux being the one to take Hammerfs outside of DragonFlyBSD's world..

Edited 2010-04-26 07:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??
by gnemmi on Mon 26th Apr 2010 06:45 UTC in reply to "Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??"
gnemmi Member since:
2006-08-17

Maybe because they are strongly reluctant to import the coding marvel of the very same guy they had kicked out?

Maybe because the code doesn't have a "FreeBSD feel to it" .. like in Murenin's port of the OpenBSD sensors framework to FreeBSD (GSoC2007/cnst-sensors)?

Maybe because they decided that with all the money, devel time and debugging effort they spent porting ZFS, ZFS should be the FS you should use regardless of wether it is or it is not a better FS than Hammer?

Maybe because of the same reasons why the keep Sendmail in base instead of moving it to ports and import DMA or OpenSMTPD to base (which are _nothing_ but historical reasons)?

Go ask FreeBSD satus quo ... they probably have a rock solid and scientific explanations about it like "Because it has been there from the beginning" or something lines along that way ..

Anyways, my congrats and sincere thanks to Jeff for his work. It will be highly aprecciated in my ZFS free world ;)

Edited 2010-04-26 07:04 UTC

Reply Score: 0

circlomanen Member since:
2008-11-02

Furthermore Hammer as it is in DragonFly relies on a ton of changes made over years to the VFS layer alone and likely changes to many other kernel subsystems that have not occurred in FreeBSD as they were not needed by it and would thus need to be ported before any serious attempt to get Hammer working could get underway.



That is a good reason! ;)
I didnt think of that, this early in the morning here in sweden. I was just thinking BSD = BSD.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??
by bsdimp on Tue 27th Apr 2010 02:53 UTC in reply to "Why isnt Hammer in FreeBSD??"
bsdimp Member since:
2007-02-23

HAMMER isn't in FreeBSD because nobody had ported the code to FreeBSD. In addition, there's concerns about scalability and reliability of the code, and how well it will fit into FreeBSD's model for multitasking. It is a big project, and it isn't clear there'd be a big win from completing it. there was also a lot of hype when it came out that turned out to be overblown when people took a first look at it, which has lead to a reluctance to give it another look.

So until somebody shows up with a port of HAMMER, it is silly to talk about "why" it isn't in FreeBSD. FreeBSD has evolved significantly in one direction, to support better MP scaling, and DFBSD has evolved in other directions. This means the porting effort would be large. Much like porting between Linux 2.0 and 2.6 in many respects, to draw an analogy.

Warner

Reply Score: 2

v Linux > BSD
by tuma324 on Mon 26th Apr 2010 06:48 UTC