Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Dec 2005 23:44 UTC, submitted by Lazarus
BSD and Darwin derivatives Fans of DragonFly BSD will be getting their Christmas present late this year, and plans for 1.5 have been announced. MP safe networking code, the long awaited cache coherency management system, and a port of Sun's ZFS. Read here for more. Update: Refresh, empty cache, whatever, and check the shiny new beastie icon! And there was much rejoicing. Can we now please discuss DragonFly BSD?
Thread beginning with comment 74897
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ZFS License
by rayiner on Sun 18th Dec 2005 02:06 UTC in reply to "ZFS License"
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

You complain UFS is old and slow, but were hoping for HFS+? We're talking about Apple's HFS+, are we not? The biggest relic of a filesystem still in common use after FAT32?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFS License
by hurdboy on Sun 18th Dec 2005 02:30 in reply to "RE: ZFS License"
hurdboy Member since:
2005-09-02

HFS+ was completely new for OS8.1. It's a very nice modern filesystem.

HFS wouldn't help matters in BSD, no. :-)

To put it another way, there's good reason why Apple did work to make HFS+ Unix-friendly, rather than try and improve UFS for use with OSX. NeXT/Openstep used standard FFS.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: ZFS License
by rayiner on Sun 18th Dec 2005 03:40 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS License"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

HFS+ is simply an extension of the old HFS code. It's the same basic filesystem that's been in Macs forever, it's just that the block address sizes have been extended to cover larger filesystems. In a very real way, HFS+ is to HFS as FAT32 is to FAT16.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: ZFS License
by kaiwai on Sun 18th Dec 2005 05:01 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS License"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

To put it another way, there's good reason why Apple did work to make HFS+ Unix-friendly, rather than try and improve UFS for use with OSX. NeXT/Openstep used standard FFS.

No, its more the need to for file forks support and the need for case preserving but case insensitive support - that and the fact that HFS+ isn't that broken, as much as the nay sayers would love to make out.

Sure, its the not the prettiest file system out there, but at the same time, is it worth replacing it with something else? I mean, if they're going for something that has 'teh cool' factor, they may wish to talk to SUN and see if they can port ZFS over to Mac OS X.

As for DragonFly, its looking like its really ontrack, and the gamble to try a new route to MP capabilities has really paid off in the end rather than the approach which the FreeBSD team took - thats not to say that Dragonfly got everything right, but at the same time, when you compare the resources that both teams have got, they've come a long way, very fast.

Reply Parent Score: 1