On 8/1/20 1:25 am, Karel Gardas wrote: > And yes, ffs performance sucks, but nor me nor you provide any diff to > change that so we can just shut up and use what's available.
Okay, question is if not ffs, then what? - Other BSDs have ZFS… is it viable to port that to OpenBSD? (Maybe it's been done before? I didn't check.) - FreeBSD has UFS2, DragonFlyBSD has HAMMER… Could we borrow their code? - If we could clean-room implement a BSD-licensed EXT3/EXT4/BTRFS/XFS/JFS/whatever, following style(8), would there be interest in supporting that in OpenBSD? - Or do we implement yet another file system? (Seems like too much work for not much gain IMO.) There's merit in the third option, OpenBSD already supports EXT2 (which is also 90's vintage like ffs) as there are some platforms (e.g. loongson) that require it. I run BTRFS on a lot of my Linux machines, and aside from some features that are still experimental (quotas being one such issue), it seems to do the job. I've also been a big XFS user in the past. Performance seems good and XFS in particular has seen widespread production use, particularly in high-performance computing arenas. (SGI didn't exactly do things small!) EXT4 is also very widespread and stable, and seems to offer decent performance. ZFS and BTRFS are much newer, and more complicated with software RAID functionality built in. I think these would be harder to implement from scratch. DIY file systems doesn't seem like a good plan for success… it'll be a lot of work, won't be compatible with anything else, and could be as bad if not worse than what we have now, whilst also being untested. ffs is at least mature and stable! Are any of the "modern" file systems (from a design perspective, licensing is a different matter) suitable for use as OpenBSD's root fs? What would be needed? Regards, -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
