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.
Thread beginning with comment 420722
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: UFS?
by marcp on Sun 25th Apr 2010 23:21 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: UFS?
by nt_jerkface on Mon 26th Apr 2010 01:00 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: UFS?
by phoenix on Mon 26th Apr 2010 03:54 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: UFS?
by Laurence on Mon 26th Apr 2010 09:46 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: UFS?
by Jago on Sun 25th Apr 2010 22:29 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: UFS?
by Mr.Manatane on Mon 26th Apr 2010 07:29 in reply to "RE: UFS?"
Mr.Manatane Member since:
2010-03-19

I hope not. ZFS has too many problems, we used it in production for many years.

It just sucks ...

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: UFS?
by marcp on Sun 25th Apr 2010 23:17 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: UFS?
by sakeniwefu on Sun 25th Apr 2010 23:38 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: UFS?
by phoenix on Mon 26th Apr 2010 03:56 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 Parent Score: 2