[SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Hiten Pandya]

hi all,

this is a wild idea...suggestion...

i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...

as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
src/gnu/

It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
for
high performance and maximum throughput...





=
-Hiten,

Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Josef Karthauser]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:01:53PM -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> hi all,
> 
> this is a wild idea...suggestion...
> 
> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...

Hi Hiten,

Search the mail list archives (from www.freebsd.org) for JFS and XFS.
You'll see that there have been many discussions about this over the
last few years.

Joe



msg29907/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Hiten Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210 16:02] wrote:
> hi all,
> 
> this is a wild idea...suggestion...
> 
> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
> 
> as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
> is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
> src/gnu/
> 
> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> for
> high performance and maximum throughput...

I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.

The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
than just dumping it into src/gnu.

Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
when you're done.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
 start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
   http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Matthew Emmerton]

> * Hiten Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210 16:02] wrote:
> > hi all,
> >
> > this is a wild idea...suggestion...
> >
> > i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> > JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
> >
> > as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
> > is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
> > src/gnu/
> >
> > It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> > for
> > high performance and maximum throughput...
>
> I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
>
> The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
> than just dumping it into src/gnu.
>
> Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
> when you're done.

I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits), and have
had this on my TODO list for a while.

The licence issue is a real sticky point, especially since the GPL and BSD
licences are like oil and water.  Because of the GPL licence, JFS support
can never become part of the GENERIC kernel, and any related support tools
will have to exist as separate binaries (newfs.jfs, fsck.jfs), as is
currently done with the EXT2FS filesystem.

--
Matt Emmerton


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Matthew Emmerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210 16:40] wrote:
> > * Hiten Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210 16:02] wrote:
> > > hi all,
> > >
> > > this is a wild idea...suggestion...
> > >
> > > i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> > > JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
> > >
> > > as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
> > > is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
> > > src/gnu/
> > >
> > > It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> > > for
> > > high performance and maximum throughput...
> >
> > I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
> >
> > The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
> > than just dumping it into src/gnu.
> >
> > Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
> > when you're done.
> 
> I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits), and have
> had this on my TODO list for a while.
> 
> The licence issue is a real sticky point, especially since the GPL and BSD
> licences are like oil and water.  Because of the GPL licence, JFS support
> can never become part of the GENERIC kernel, and any related support tools
> will have to exist as separate binaries (newfs.jfs, fsck.jfs), as is
> currently done with the EXT2FS filesystem.

This is pretty much how they all work, on netbsd the LFS filesystem
has its own suite of seperate utilities as well.  Don't be discouraged,
get hacking! :)

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
 start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
   http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Anthony Schneider]

I'm no expert on journaled filesystems, but isn't the freebsd softupdates
option similar?  perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer
options SOFTERUPDATES
as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs?
-Anthony.


On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 05:39:35PM -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> > * Hiten Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210 16:02] wrote:
> > > hi all,
> > >
> > > this is a wild idea...suggestion...
> > >
> > > i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> > > JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
> > >
> > > as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
> > > is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
> > > src/gnu/
> > >
> > > It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> > > for
> > > high performance and maximum throughput...
> >
> > I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
> >
> > The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
> > than just dumping it into src/gnu.
> >
> > Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
> > when you're done.
> 
> I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits), and have
> had this on my TODO list for a while.
> 
> The licence issue is a real sticky point, especially since the GPL and BSD
> licences are like oil and water.  Because of the GPL licence, JFS support
> can never become part of the GENERIC kernel, and any related support tools
> will have to exist as separate binaries (newfs.jfs, fsck.jfs), as is
> currently done with the EXT2FS filesystem.
> 
> --
> Matt Emmerton
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message



msg29914/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Hiten Pandya]

hi,
the license issues dont really affect us...
after all we have an src/gnu directory... thats what
it is for... dumping GPL'ed stuff
 
and talking about GPL, we can even publish the code
as the GPL license states... after all we are an
open Source Project, but if we were commercial...

it would have affected us.. but thats not the
case...
 
the only other thing is, i am itermediatory C
programmer and i have never ported a filesystem
before.

but.. that doesn't affect me a lot.. its experience
which i will gain...

After all the whole of the FreeBSD Team is on my
back,
so there is nothing to worry about...

have already turned the Source code tree for JFS
into DoxyGen Generated Pages... i have started to look
into it...

I am sure it is possible to port it to FreeBSD... 
though... it may be a bit trickier (not hard)...
 
never say never :-)

=Hiten
=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
--- Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Emmerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210
> 16:40] wrote:
> > > * Hiten Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210
> 16:02] wrote:
> > > > hi all,
> > > >
> > > > this is a wild idea...suggestion...
> > > >
> > > > i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to
> port
> > > > JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
> > > >
> > > > as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux
> and
 > > > is licensed under GPL, so we could put this
 > into
> > > > src/gnu/
> > > >
> > > > It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise
> servers
> > > > for
> > > > high performance and maximum throughput...
> > >
> > > I'm glad you took the time to read the
> marketting literature.
> > >
> > > The problem is that porting it is going to be
 a
> bit more complicated
> > > than just dumping it into src/gnu.
> > >
> > > Feel free to take a shot at porting it though,
> let us know
> > > when you're done.
> > 
> > I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for
> FreeBSD pursuits), and have
> > had this on my TODO list for a while.
> > 
> > The licence issue is a real sticky point,
 > especially since the GPL and BSD
> > licences are like oil and water.  Because of the
> GPL licence, JFS support
> > can never become part of the GENERIC kernel, and
> any related support tools
> > will have to exist as separate binaries
> (newfs.jfs, fsck.jfs), as is
> > currently done with the EXT2FS filesystem.
> 
> This is pretty much how they all work, on netbsd
the
> LFS filesystem
> has its own suite of seperate utilities as well. 
> Don't be discouraged,
 > get hacking! :)

=
-Hiten,

Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



=
-Hiten,

Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Greg Lehey]

[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]

Long-short syndrome in first message.

On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 14:01:53 -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> hi all,
>
> this is a wild idea...suggestion...
>
> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
>
> as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and is licensed under
> GPL, so we could put this into src/gnu/

Well, JFS was developed by IBM for AIX.  If you look at the header
files, it is clearly derived from UFS.  They later developed a
completely new file system, JFS2, for OS/2, and later ported this
version to Linux.  It's also available for AIX, but the standard AIX
file system is still the old JFS1.

> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high
> performance and maximum throughput...

I don't think the zSeries (System/390) runs JFS.  As I said above, the
RS/6000 uses a different JFS file system.

On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:39:35 -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>> * Hiten Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210 16:02] wrote:
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> this is a wild idea...suggestion...
>>>
>>> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
>>> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
>>>
>>> as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
>>> is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
>>> src/gnu/
>>>
>>> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
>>> for
>>> high performance and maximum throughput...
>>
>> I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
>>
>> The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
>> than just dumping it into src/gnu.
>>
>> Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
>> when you're done.
>
> I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits),
> and have had this on my TODO list for a while.

Well, I'm gainfully employed by IBM, both for FreeBSD and JFS.  I've
thought (and spoken) about this from time to time.  It would be a lot
of work.

> The licence issue is a real sticky point, especially since the GPL
> and BSD licences are like oil and water.  Because of the GPL
> licence, JFS support can never become part of the GENERIC kernel,
> and any related support tools will have to exist as separate
> binaries (newfs.jfs, fsck.jfs), as is currently done with the EXT2FS
> filesystem.

As others have pointed out, this is a detail.  The real question is:
will JFS2 buy anything?  The only real way to find out is to try it. 

On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:47:11 -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote:
> I'm no expert on journaled filesystems, but isn't the freebsd softupdates
> option similar?

No, at least not from a technical standpoint.  From a user standpoint,
they both try to make things faster and more reliable, but they do it
in very different ways.

>  perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer
>   options SOFTERUPDATES
> as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs?

And what would that do?

Greg
--
When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the
original text.  
For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Greg Lehey]

On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 10:56:17 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:39:35 -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>>> * Hiten Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011210 16:02] wrote:
 hi all,

 this is a wild idea...suggestion...

 i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
 JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...

 as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
 is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
 src/gnu/

 It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
 for
 high performance and maximum throughput...
>>>
>>> I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
>>>
>>> The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
>>> than just dumping it into src/gnu.
>>>
>>> Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
>>> when you're done.
>>
>> I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits),
>> and have had this on my TODO list for a while.
>
> Well, I'm gainfully employed by IBM, both for FreeBSD and JFS.  I've
> thought (and spoken) about this from time to time.  It would be a lot
> of work.

BTW, if anybody wants to do it anyway, let me know.  I'm in a position
to help with information, though possibly not with coding.

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Brandon D. Valentine]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:

>On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:47:11 -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote:
>>  perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer
>>  options SOFTERUPDATES
>> as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs?
>
>And what would that do?

SOFTERUPDATES includes a switch to diffused gallery lighting and
enhanced mood music.  For the hacker in touch with his feminine side, it
offers the ultimate in warm fuzzies.

Brandon D. Valentine
-- 
"Iam mens praetrepidans avet vagari."
- G. Valerius Catullus, Carmina, XLVI


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Anthony Schneider]

> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:47:11 -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote:
> > I'm no expert on journaled filesystems, but isn't the freebsd softupdates
> > option similar?
> 
> No, at least not from a technical standpoint.  From a user standpoint,
> they both try to make things faster and more reliable, but they do it
> in very different ways.
> 

Well, perhaps I should have made that clearer:  I am not an expert on either
journaled filesystems not am I an expert on FreeBSD's softupdates option,
technically or other.

> >  perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer
> > options SOFTERUPDATES
> > as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs?
> 
> And what would that do?

My thoughts were that if the two were similar in effect that it might be
a relatively easy project to escalate towards achieving the same effects
in one as the other.  I understand that this is not necessarily the case.
 
> Greg

-Anthony.




msg29922/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Tony]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anthony Schneider
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> >  perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer
>> >options SOFTERUPDATES
>> > as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs?
>> 
>> And what would that do?
>
>My thoughts were that if the two were similar in effect that it might be
>a relatively easy project to escalate towards achieving the same effects
>in one as the other.  I understand that this is not necessarily the case.

The philosophies in designing the file systems were quite different.  At
the abstract these are efficiency versus reliability.  The philosophy
behind a file system not only guides the structure of code it also
shapes the structures on disk.

A transaction based or journal file system will, for example, appear to
grow a database file by whole valid records.  If the change is
interrupted and the system is restarted the file will either be on the
state it was in before the change or in the state afterwards.

The usual efficiency oriented file systems can be interrupted at
intermediate points: extra disk space is marked as allocated, disk space
is assigned to file, file write has happened but the file length has not
been updated (or vice versa).

Most current users will probably not like the speed penalties of a
journal file system, and stick to the faster FS.  On the other hand a
solid journal FS may encourage more take up for back end databases, for
e-commerce, data warehousing, etc...


Tony
-- 
  "One needs literature in one's life, 
   because without it one deteriorates." - Nelson Mandela

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Matthew Emmerton]

> Most current users will probably not like the speed penalties of a
> journal file system, and stick to the faster FS.  On the other hand a
> solid journal FS may encourage more take up for back end databases, for
> e-commerce, data warehousing, etc...

The transaction support of JFS isn't really viable for large-scale database
implementations because it imposes a real speed penalty.  Most large-scale
DB2 or Oracle installations use raw disk, and let the transaction support in
the database keep everything sane.

The real benefit of JFS (or any other journaling FS) is to provide a
transactional guarantees for everyday disk activites.  The best example I
can think of is a large multi-user UNIX box in a programming environment,
with multiple CVS trees, local working copies of code, and lots and lots of
updates (compiles, checkouts, search-and-replace, etc.)  It is in this kind
of environment that you want the assurance that any update will either pass
or fail -- nothing in between to cause corruption that could potentiall
remain undetected and eventually snowball into an unusuable filesystem.

--
Matt Emmerton


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Hiten Pandya wrote:
> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...

Not unless you have plans.  When I was an IBM employee, they would
not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM
where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and
still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts.

I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up.


> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> for high performance and maximum throughput...

No, it's not.  The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
the good AIX JFS code.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Alfred Perlstein wrote:

[ ... Hiten wants someone to GPLify FreeBSD ... ]

> I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
> 
> The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
> than just dumping it into src/gnu.
> 
> Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
> when you're done.

FS porting to FreeBSD is actually pretty trivial(*), though some
transactioning changes to the FreeBSD VFS layer consumers (the
system calls and NFS server code) would be necessary to make
the journal roll-back function correctly, following a failure.

(*) Trivial: meaning grunt work is required; not necessarily an
indicator of the amount of work, only the intellectual effort
required for the job

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011211 00:48] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 
> [ ... Hiten wants someone to GPLify FreeBSD ... ]
> 
> > I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
> > 
> > The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
> > than just dumping it into src/gnu.
> > 
> > Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
> > when you're done.
> 
> FS porting to FreeBSD is actually pretty trivial(*), though some
> transactioning changes to the FreeBSD VFS layer consumers (the
> system calls and NFS server code) would be necessary to make
> the journal roll-back function correctly, following a failure.
> 
> (*) Trivial: meaning grunt work is required; not necessarily an
> indicator of the amount of work, only the intellectual effort
> required for the job

Terry, porting an FS is trivial, doing it right less so, but
actually taking the time to do it, now that's another matter,
considering I don't have any experience with JFS, porting it
"just to find out" doesn't make it worth my while.  Hence
my encouragement of our enthusiastic friend.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
 start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
   http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Hiten Pandya wrote:
> the license issues dont really affect us...
> after all we have an src/gnu directory... thats what
> it is for... dumping GPL'ed stuff
> 
> and talking about GPL, we can even publish the code
> as the GPL license states... after all we are an
> open Source Project, but if we were commercial...
> 
> it would have affected us.. but thats not the
> case...

Please note: none of the code shipped in /usr/src/gnu is in the
boot path.

In other words, you can build a bootable FreeBSD system without it.

For an FS that will be used as the root FS (/), this is not true.

It is not legal for us to distribute CDROMS capable of installing
a new FreeBSD system wit only JFS partitions, due to the license.

You really should follow Alfreds advice, and go read the list
archives, where this issue was discussed in detail, before.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Greg Lehey]

On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 22:45:22 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Hiten Pandya wrote:
>> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
>> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
>
> Not unless you have plans.  When I was an IBM employee, they would
> not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM
> where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and
> still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts.
>
> I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up.

Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
before booting the kernel.  This means that, theoretically, it would
be possible to have a JFS root file system.  Given the strong
opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
if it will buy us anything.

>> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
>> for high performance and maximum throughput...
>
> No, it's not.  The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
> the good AIX JFS code.

That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so
it's not as if it's second-rate.  From what I've seen of the
structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1.  I haven't compared
performance.

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Greg Lehey]

On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 22:48:58 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> [ ... Hiten wants someone to GPLify FreeBSD ... ]
>
>> I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
>>
>> The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
>> than just dumping it into src/gnu.
>>
>> Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
>> when you're done.
>
> FS porting to FreeBSD is actually pretty trivial(*), though some
> transactioning changes to the FreeBSD VFS layer consumers (the
> system calls and NFS server code) would be necessary to make
> the journal roll-back function correctly, following a failure.
>
> (*) Trivial: meaning grunt work is required; not necessarily an
> indicator of the amount of work, only the intellectual effort
> required for the job

Considering that the current UFS implementation didn't need to be
ported, and people are still working on the details, I think that this
is a highly misleading statement.

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Greg Lehey wrote:
> Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
> before booting the kernel.  This means that, theoretically, it would
> be possible to have a JFS root file system.  Given the strong
> opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
> see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
> if it will buy us anything.

?

OK, I load the kernel from the JFS.  I mount the root FS, which
is a JFS.  I read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can
mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module "jfs.ko"
from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I
can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can mount the
root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...

Do you see the problem yet?


> >> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> >> for high performance and maximum throughput...
> >
> > No, it's not.  The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
> > the good AIX JFS code.
> 
> That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so
> it's not as if it's second-rate.  From what I've seen of the
> structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1.  I haven't compared
> performance.

None of the Web Connections RS/6000 machines ran this OS/2 derived
code.  I was under the impression that it was there for Linux
compatability.  My impression is, layout or not, the original JFS
is much better code, overall.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Greg Lehey wrote:
> > FS porting to FreeBSD is actually pretty trivial(*), though some
> > transactioning changes to the FreeBSD VFS layer consumers (the
> > system calls and NFS server code) would be necessary to make
> > the journal roll-back function correctly, following a failure.
> >
> > (*) Trivial: meaning grunt work is required; not necessarily an
> > indicator of the amount of work, only the intellectual effort
> > required for the job
> 
> Considering that the current UFS implementation didn't need to be
> ported, and people are still working on the details, I think that this
> is a highly misleading statement.

The current UFS has a number of issues which make it non-trivial;
it was, in effect, a port; here is the short list:

o   Soft updates
o   Unified VM and buffer cache
o   Interface is still not entirely reflexive
o   VOP_READDIR restart via cookies, rather than seperate
read/externalize VOPS, which would have avoided cookies
o   Gratuitous difference in cookie parameter order between
FreeBSD and OpenBSD/NetBSD
o   "Default" VOPS considreably complicate stacking, which
appears to be a goal nowm when it wasn't a goal before
o   New block size defaults (what happens to directories,
which require atomicity and therefore use 512b blocks,
is not explained in the 8K/1K case)
o   New directory acceleration code (dirhash; probably
belongs in the directory name cache, not the FS)
o   NFS server code and system call code not treated as
equal consumers of the VFS interface


Live code always has issues, particularly if you are trying to
pound a round peg into a square hole (hence Kirk taking up the
task of a redesign).


FWIW: I was a member of a very small team which ported the entire
Heidemann framework, the UFS and FFS code of the time, and also
implemented Soft Updates and Soft Read Only in 1996 or so.  We
had to port to the Windows 95 IFSMgr framework, add a second
namespace, add Unicode support, deal with the 512b directory
blocks growing to 1024b, while maintaining idempotence in the
face of the loss of atomicity, etc..  Three people did almost
all the work in about 5 months.

The code is _not_ hard to get your head around.

I think that everyone saying "Ut oh!  SCARY!" gives people the
wrong idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.

Unlike most of the rest of the system, there are at least white
papers available.  I'd have to say the FS design was one of the
better documented parts of FreeBSD, if you take the many McKusick,
Heidemann, Ganager/Patt papers and articles into account.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Maxim Sobolev]

Terry Lambert wrote:
> 
> Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
> > before booting the kernel.  This means that, theoretically, it would
> > be possible to have a JFS root file system.  Given the strong
> > opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
> > see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
> > if it will buy us anything.
> 
> ?
> 
> OK, I load the kernel from the JFS.  I mount the root FS, which
> is a JFS.  I read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can
> mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module "jfs.ko"
> from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I
> can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can mount the
> root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...
> 
> Do you see the problem yet?

Libstand (and hence the loader) could be extended to allow reading
files from jfs without using any GPL'ed code. For example our loader
can load modules from the FAT even though we do not have any M$ code.
:) Alternatively, /boot could be placed on separate filesystem, which
could be ufs or anything else supported by the loader.

-Maxim

> > >> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> > >> for high performance and maximum throughput...
> > >
> > > No, it's not.  The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
> > > the good AIX JFS code.
> >
> > That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so
> > it's not as if it's second-rate.  From what I've seen of the
> > structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1.  I haven't compared
> > performance.
> 
> None of the Web Connections RS/6000 machines ran this OS/2 derived
> code.  I was under the impression that it was there for Linux
> compatability.  My impression is, layout or not, the original JFS
> is much better code, overall.
> 
> -- Terry
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Peter Wemm]

Terry Lambert wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
> > before booting the kernel.  This means that, theoretically, it would
> > be possible to have a JFS root file system.  Given the strong
> > opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
> > see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
> > if it will buy us anything.
> 
> ?
> 
> OK, I load the kernel from the JFS.  I mount the root FS, which
> is a JFS.  I read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can
> mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module "jfs.ko"
> from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I
> can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can mount the
> root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...
> 
> Do you see the problem yet?

It is not a problem.  The *kernel* does not load jfs.ko, it is loader
itself. There is no reason why a trivial non-gpl jfs reader couldn't be
written for boot2 and loader if the need was great enough.  Or have /boot
as a seperate file system (eg: UFS or FAT32).  We do this on IA64 where
/boot is a FAT32 filesystem (not exactly, but close enough.  I usually
mount it on /efi and make /boot/ a symlink to /efi/boot so that in EFI
we have a /boot as well).

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Hiten Pandya]

> [... Hiten want's to GPL'ify FreeBSD ...]

hi,
first of all, i would like to clear of some point
which
have been taken wrongly.

o  My Intentions were never to GPL'ify FreeBSD :-)

o  The reason i started this discussion was because
   i think JFS/JFS2 would be a nice addition to
   FreeBSD like the rest of the other filesystems.

o  The JFS does _not_ have to be root, and even if
   people were to download it because it is GPL'ed,
   the size of the filesystem is only around 1.0MB

o  Statistically, not everyone is going to run after
   IBM's JFS, when there are other similar File
Systems

o  If people did want JFS, they can download it of
   our website, say http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jfs

o  It can also be a child project, like the JAVA
   Project.

o  I think, (personally), that we migh be able to get
   more Corporates attracted, if we take the step of
   porting quality (not exactly) GPL'ed technologies
   for FreeBSD (my personal thoughts)

o  It is hard to Port AIX or OS/2 based code, but we
   have to agree that, BSD Users were meant to take
   that kind of challenges, have taken before

o  The JFS, can just be a bonus addition for FreeBSD,
   and does not have to be part of the base addition,
   example: CD-ROMS /DVD or any other releases which
   prohibit GNU Code.






=
-Hiten,

Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Dominic Marks]

On Tuesday 11 December 2001 10:26 am, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> > [... Hiten want's to GPL'ify FreeBSD ...]
>
> hi,
> first of all, i would like to clear of some point
> which
> have been taken wrongly.
>

What mail client do you use? It seems to be playing havoc with your 
line breaks.

> o  My Intentions were never to GPL'ify FreeBSD :-)

Yes, but your plans do involve making FreeBSD contain potentially 
more GPL'ed code than it already does. There are good reasons to keep 
GPL code away from the rest of the source (Legal and emotive).

> o  The reason i started this discussion was because
>i think JFS/JFS2 would be a nice addition to
>FreeBSD like the rest of the other filesystems.

While I have nothing against JFS support in any way and I suppose it 
would be a nice addition for some users, what does it really offer 
that is going to be of use to most FreeBSD users? Commercial ones or 
otherwise. From the people I've discussed JFS with they seem to agree 
that its best features are in volume administration (In their 
opinion) - are the management tools part of the GPL'ed code base at 
all? If not I think it would be more useful improving what we already 
have, UFS.

> o  The JFS does _not_ have to be root, and even if
>people were to download it because it is GPL'ed,
>the size of the filesystem is only around 1.0MB

Okay, but if people do use it and do want it for their system, 
including as the root filesystem then it is a problem to be resolved. 
Since quite a few of the pre-existing filesystems (UFS, NFS, ISO9660) 
do have ability to work in this manner.

> o  Statistically, not everyone is going to run after
>IBM's JFS, when there are other similar File
> Systems

Yes, but I hope your not planning to port them all :)

> o  If people did want JFS, they can download it of
>our website, say http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jfs
>
> o  It can also be a child project, like the JAVA
>Project.

This is okay but adds complexity from your point of view as well as 
the end user. One of the best things about the BSDs as opposed to 
Linux for example is that in general I do not have to apply any (or 
many) patches to the kernel. 

> o  I think, (personally), that we migh be able to get
>more Corporates attracted, if we take the step of
>porting quality (not exactly) GPL'ed technologies
>for FreeBSD (my personal thoughts)

Corporate investment is like dynamite. It can be a very useful tool 
for getting things done, and it can also blow up in your face.

> o  It is hard to Port AIX or OS/2 based code, but we
>have to agree that, BSD Users were meant to take
>that kind of challenges, have taken before
>
> o  The JFS, can just be a bonus addition for FreeBSD,
>and does not have to be part of the base addition,
>example: CD-ROMS /DVD or any other releases which
>prohibit GNU Code.
>
> =
> -Hiten,
>

Thanks
-- 
Dominic

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Hiten Pandya]

hi,

BTW, i am a first timer at porting a file system...

if the proffesionals think that it is not wise or
useful to port the FS (especially IBM's), it is OK,

but, just in case, anyone else (more than three
people)
would like to port this FS to FreeBSD, my target would
be to get it done by September 2002, if we work in a
group...

i dont have web-space where i can host this project,
and we would need a mailing list... probably

freebsd-jfs would help..
and http://people.freebsd.org/~bsdjfs

but thats only if three of more people are _really_
interested in porting it... cause as you know...
porting an IBM file system (from looks) is not a 
one man job :-)

=Hiten
=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> What mail client do you use? It seems to be playing
> havoc with your 
> line breaks.

Sorry, as you know, i am only 15 years old, and my
dad has no plans to get me a pop account and let me
have my machine on 24/365 jus' to receive mail.. :-(

but... i use Yahoo! Mail, which if by far the fastest
mail i am using at the moment... i used to have
hotmail
but as you know Microsft-Hotmail.. so i  left it..

You can point me to a better free mail account, which
i can use in conjuction with my FreeBSD system having
to keep it on 24/7

> Yes, but your plans do involve making FreeBSD
> contain potentially 
> more GPL'ed code than it already does. There are
> good reasons to keep 
> GPL code away from the rest of the source (Legal and
> emotive).

well.. yeah

=Hiten
=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

=
-Hiten,

Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > OK, I load the kernel from the JFS.  I mount the root FS, which
> > is a JFS.  I read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can
> > mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module "jfs.ko"
> > from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I
> > can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can mount the
> > root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...
> >
> > Do you see the problem yet?
> 
> Libstand (and hence the loader) could be extended to allow reading
> files from jfs without using any GPL'ed code. For example our loader
> can load modules from the FAT even though we do not have any M$ code.
> :) Alternatively, /boot could be placed on separate filesystem, which
> could be ufs or anything else supported by the loader.

Patches appreciated.

Note that if you do a read-only JFS, you are more than half way there
to a n0n-GPL'ed implementation, so you might as well finish it off,
instead of porting the IBM code.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Peter Wemm wrote:
> It is not a problem.  The *kernel* does not load jfs.ko, it is loader
> itself. There is no reason why a trivial non-gpl jfs reader couldn't be
> written for boot2 and loader if the need was great enough.  Or have /boot
> as a seperate file system (eg: UFS or FAT32).  We do this on IA64 where
> /boot is a FAT32 filesystem (not exactly, but close enough.  I usually
> mount it on /efi and make /boot/ a symlink to /efi/boot so that in EFI
> we have a /boot as well).

JFS patches?
Sysinstall patches?
/usr/src/lib/stand patches?
/usr/src/sys/boot/* patches?

8^).

--- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Hiten Pandya]

that would be nice i suppose.. :-)

BTW, where is this non-GPL code.. i wouldn't mind
putting my hands on it and working on it...

=Hiten
=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--- Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > OK, I load the kernel from the JFS.  I mount the
> root FS, which
> > > is a JFS.  I read the module "jfs.ko" from the
> JFS so that I can
> > > mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read
> the module "jfs.ko"
> > > from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS,
> which is a JFS, so I
> > > can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so
> that I can mount the
> > > root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...
> > >
> > > Do you see the problem yet?
> > 
> > Libstand (and hence the loader) could be extended
> to allow reading
> > files from jfs without using any GPL'ed code. For
> example our loader
> > can load modules from the FAT even though we do
> not have any M$ code.
> > :) Alternatively, /boot could be placed on
> separate filesystem, which
> > could be ufs or anything else supported by the
> loader.
> 
> Patches appreciated.
> 
> Note that if you do a read-only JFS, you are more
> than half way there
> to a n0n-GPL'ed implementation, so you might as well
> finish it off,
> instead of porting the IBM code.
> 
> -- Terry


=
-Hiten,

Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Josef Karthauser]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 04:01:04AM -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> 
> but thats only if three of more people are _really_
> interested in porting it... cause as you know...
> porting an IBM file system (from looks) is not a 
> one man job :-)
> 

It is probably a one man job if that man knows the kernel inside
and out in these areas, and has the time and energy to see it
through.  I'd suggest that you find a much much smaller area to
work on yourself for now though.  (Take a look in the PR database
for ideas of where to start).

Joe



msg29966/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Wayne Pascoe]

Josef Karthauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> It is probably a one man job if that man knows the kernel inside
> and out in these areas, and has the time and energy to see it
> through.  I'd suggest that you find a much much smaller area to
> work on yourself for now though.  (Take a look in the PR database
> for ideas of where to start).

What is the PR database of which you speak and where can I find it? I
am looking for a project to work on in my free time. 

Thanks,

-- 
- Wayne Pascoe
 | The thing is, I was POSITIVE that I 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  | wasn't actually depressed, just that life 
http://www.molemanarmy.com   | had no meaning and I was tired of living.
 | -- daystar on k5
 | 

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Josef Karthauser]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 07:58:04PM +, Wayne Pascoe wrote:
> Josef Karthauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > It is probably a one man job if that man knows the kernel inside
> > and out in these areas, and has the time and energy to see it
> > through.  I'd suggest that you find a much much smaller area to
> > work on yourself for now though.  (Take a look in the PR database
> > for ideas of where to start).
> 
> What is the PR database of which you speak and where can I find it? I
> am looking for a project to work on in my free time. 

http://www.freebsd.org/support.html#gnats

Joe



msg29979/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Greg Lehey]

On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at  1:08:23 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>>> FS porting to FreeBSD is actually pretty trivial(*), though some
>>> transactioning changes to the FreeBSD VFS layer consumers (the
>>> system calls and NFS server code) would be necessary to make
>>> the journal roll-back function correctly, following a failure.
>>>
>>> (*) Trivial: meaning grunt work is required; not necessarily an
>>> indicator of the amount of work, only the intellectual effort
>>> required for the job
>>
>> Considering that the current UFS implementation didn't need to be
>> ported, and people are still working on the details, I think that this
>> is a highly misleading statement.
>
> The current UFS has a number of issues which make it non-trivial;
> it was, in effect, a port; here is the short list:
>
> 
>
> Live code always has issues, particularly if you are trying to
> pound a round peg into a square hole (hence Kirk taking up the
> task of a redesign).

Of course.  But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has
been with BSD since the beginning.  There is a similar list of items
for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of
the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD.

> I think that everyone saying "Ut oh!  SCARY!" gives people the wrong
> idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.

I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I
suppose is what you mean when you say "where are the patches?".  As I
said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD.

On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at  2:26:45 -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote:
>> [... Hiten want's to GPL'ify FreeBSD ...]
>
> hi,
> first of all, i would like to clear of some point which have been
> taken wrongly.
>
> o  My Intentions were never to GPL'ify FreeBSD :-)

Agreed, I don't think anybody thought that.

> o  The reason i started this discussion was because
>i think JFS/JFS2 would be a nice addition to
>FreeBSD like the rest of the other filesystems.
>
> o  The JFS does _not_ have to be root, and even if
>people were to download it because it is GPL'ed,
>the size of the filesystem is only around 1.0MB

If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root
file system too.

> o  It is hard to Port AIX or OS/2 based code, but we
>have to agree that, BSD Users were meant to take
>that kind of challenges, have taken before

It's probably easier to port AIX based code than OS/2 or Linux based
code.

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Greg Lehey wrote:
> Of course.  But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has
> been with BSD since the beginning.  There is a similar list of items
> for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of
> the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD.

I maintain that the FreeBSD UFS *is* a port of the Heidemann
implementation from the FICUS project, which had to be done because
certain files were claimed to be "contaminated" with USL IP, and
were removed as part of the USL/UCB settlement (6 key files from 5
subsystems, which they thought we couldn't rewrite from scratch in
time to be a competitive threat).

I also maintain that the most difficult thing is getting the list
of items, and, with the information from the UFS work in hand, the
JFS specific items not on that list are trivial (there are exactly
two items, in fact: log roll forward/backward, and transaction
abort).


> > I think that everyone saying "Ut oh!  SCARY!" gives people the wrong
> > idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.
> 
> I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I
> suppose is what you mean when you say "where are the patches?".  As I
> said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD.

I ported the entire GFS user space tools set, sans two, to FreeBSD in
about 2 hours.  If FreeBSD had the necessary hardware drivers for
shared disks, I would have finished the two that I didn't do, and then
I would have gone to Frys, bought the necessary controllers, disk, and
two scratch boxes, and finished porting the whole damn thing.  I think
I could have it all up and running in about 4 weeks, assuming the Linux
implementation actually works for more than one machine, and my test
machines were configured dual boot for Linux/FreeBSD.  Unlike IBM, the
GFS people have indicated a willingness to bend on the license issue.

When I say "trivial", I mean "trivial", as the term is used in physics
or mathematics: a well understood operation that can be performed rote,
and does not require significant original thinking to perform.

When I say "where are the patches?" I mean "that's an incredibly
stupid idea, given the license, and you aren't going to get me to do
that work without paying me, so you might as well send patches -- do
the work yourself -- because you are going to have a hell of a time
getting buy-in from anyone clued enough to do the work for you".


> If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root
> file system too.

Only, you will never be able to build a firewall, router, or other
product that ships with it statically linked into the kernel, since
that would violate the terms of the GPL (additional restrictions,
and linked code not being GPL'ed).

What good is the damn thing, if the only people who can use it are
big site admins who build their own kernels, and never expect to
sell their company to anyone (or are prepared to recompile all the
kernels on all their machines, should the company ever sell, since
they can't transfer ownership of a FreeBSD kernel with GPL'ed code
in it directly, without violating the license)?

RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
work around the letter of the GPL.  Given his religious convictions,
I can't see him *not*.  Factor that into your decision.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Craig R]

I think I would rather see people tweaking the heck out of the existing UFS 
filesystem and implementing new ways of getting it to go faster. 
Implementing a whole new filesystem would probably take a lot of work, and 
the performance wouldn't be much better anyways. IMHO, people interested in 
making a filesystem faster should stick with UFS. FreeBSD should not do what 
Linux does, which is make a whole bunch of different filesystems that all 
suck in a different way.

This is an opinion and should be taken as such, not an insult to those that 
like the whole JFS idea.

-Craig

_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Greg Lehey]

On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 19:42:30 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>> Of course.  But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has
>> been with BSD since the beginning.  There is a similar list of items
>> for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of
>> the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD.
>
> I maintain that the FreeBSD UFS *is* a port of the Heidemann
> implementation from the FICUS project, which had to be done because
> certain files were claimed to be "contaminated" with USL IP, and
> were removed as part of the USL/UCB settlement (6 key files from 5
> subsystems, which they thought we couldn't rewrite from scratch in
> time to be a competitive threat).

Which files?  Did they require adapting to a different environment?

> I also maintain that the most difficult thing is getting the list of
> items, and, with the information from the UFS work in hand, the JFS
> specific items not on that list are trivial (there are exactly two
> items, in fact: log roll forward/backward, and transaction abort).

I'd expect these to be the easiest parts, since they don't have too
much to do with the rest of the system.  One of the issues with Linux
is that the interface to the rest of the system, and I don't expect
these parts to have much interfacing to do.

>>> I think that everyone saying "Ut oh!  SCARY!" gives people the wrong
>>> idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.
>>
>> I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I
>> suppose is what you mean when you say "where are the patches?".  As I
>> said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD.
>
> I ported the entire GFS user space tools set, sans two, to FreeBSD in
> about 2 hours. 

I expect the user space tools for JFS2 to be pretty straightforward
too.

>> If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root
>> file system too.
>
> Only, you will never be able to build a firewall, router, or other
> product that ships with it statically linked into the kernel, since
> that would violate the terms of the GPL (additional restrictions,
> and linked code not being GPL'ed).

Fine, so we load the module.  What's your point?

> What good is the damn thing, if the only people who can use it are
> ...

Well, I suppose it'll still be good for them.  Maybe.

> RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
> distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
> work around the letter of the GPL.  Given his religious convictions,
> I can't see him *not*.  Factor that into your decision.

You want me personally to get him to agree that loading modules at
boot time does not violate the GPL?

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Tony]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Lehey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 22:45:22 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
>>
>> No, it's not.  The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
>> the good AIX JFS code.
>
>That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so
>it's not as if it's second-rate.  From what I've seen of the
>structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1.  I haven't compared
>performance.

I have had a little look at the online documentation for IBM's Linux JFS
project, from Steve Best & Dave Kleikamp.


A few things caught my eye that would dissuade me from using Linux JFS
as a base for FreeBSD:

1.  "JFS only operates on meta-data ... It does not log file data or 
recover this data to a consistent state."  [JFS overview]

"The logging style introduces a synchronous write to the log disk 
into each inode or vfs operation that modifies meta-data."  [JFS 
overview]

This doesn't sound any more robust than FreeBSD's current 
Softupdates.  JFS wins though as fsck is faster on a reboot ...

Does AIX JFS log any file data?


2.  "The minimum file system size supported by JFS is 16Mbytes."  [JFS 
overview]

"JFS will not support diskettes as an underlying file system."  [JFS 
overview]

I believe AIX JFS does support diskettes / removable media.


3.  Linux JFS does not support AIX JFS volumes. [various places]

I am not clear whether this is inherent in some data structures 
being different, or just that Linux doesn't process LVM info.

JFS on AIX is "backward compatible" with Enhanced JFS (JFS2).


4.  The Linux JFS driver is noticeably incomplete [from JFS todo list]:
o  SMP bugs.
o  Only 4096 byte block sizes currently supported.
   (512, 1024 and 2048 should be available too.)
o  No defrag tool.
o  FS resizing is not yet available.
o  Log file must be on the JFS partition.
o  Disk quotas are not currently supported.
o  Extended Attributes and Access Control Lists are not functional.


5.  "JFS is still guru-friendly (meaning that you need a Linux guru on 
hand), but it will eventually grow into administrator-friendly."
[JFS FAQ]

I'm not sure what this means, possibly just that the FS utilities 
and man pages need some work.

Although the "I .. never found un-resolvable problems" in the same 
paragraph is a shade short of a ringing endorsement of
reliability.  (Linux JFS was announced in May 2000, so there has
been some time to work on this.)


Undoubtedly JFS on FreeBSD would be expected to work with Linux JFS
volumes, but inter-operation with AIX JFS & JFS2 is also desirable.

My questions at this point are:
*  is there any IBM material, white papers or whatever, that I could
   study to find out about JFS(2) on AIX?

*  where is a good place to start learning about FreeBSD file systems,
   specifically UFS?


Tony

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Tony Naggs]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hiten
Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>hi,
>
>BTW, i am a first timer at porting a file system...

That is okay, few programmers ever port more than one file system.

Most useful is to have some experience programming and debugging FreeBSD
kernel code.

Also useful would be some knowledge of the theory; how journals for a
file system work, optimizing disk accesses, etc... also to have
experience in debugging or adding features to one.

>if the proffesionals think that it is not wise or
>useful to port the FS (especially IBM's), it is OK,

Does FreeBSD have something like JFS already?
No.

Would it be nice to have JFS support in FreeBSD?
Yes.

Has anybody ever said "I would deploy 1000 FreeBSD servers if they ran
JFS"?  100?  10?  1?
Probably not.

As I understand it, the big win with JFS is that after a system restart
fsck has little to do, (barring disk media faults).  Just syncing up the
file system with the journaled logs.  So servers with huge file systems
boot up quickly.

For a JFS implementation to be accepted in this environment the code has
to be good, well tested and avoid hassle with GPL.  (IMO)

>but, just in case, anyone else (more than three
>people)

I think three people would be a good number.  A file system is fairly
small, and the parts all rely on each other.  Having too many people
means lots of effort is spent on sharing out tasks, coordinating, ...
rather than coding & testing.

The obvious splits are: file-system design & implementation, utilities,
testing and documentation.

>would like to port this FS to FreeBSD, my target would
>be to get it done by September 2002, if we work in a
>group...

I don't know how hard it is to fit a new FS into FreeBSD, I haven't even
done anything with the kernel up till now.  So I would not want to
timetable anything too strictly.  Though having it available for 5.0 (Q4
20002) would be good!

>i dont have web-space where i can host this project,
>and we would need a mailing list... probably
>
>freebsd-jfs would help..
>and http://people.freebsd.org/~bsdjfs

freebsd-fs is probably good enough for a mailing list, it is fairly
quiet most of the time.

>but thats only if three of more people are _really_
>interested in porting it... cause as you know...
>porting an IBM file system (from looks) is not a 
>one man job :-)

>Sorry, as you know, i am only 15 years old, and my

It is good to be interested and enthusiastic.  I do not want to put you
off contributing, but I wonder what you are looking for.

Committing to a project of several months seems quite a big step for
someone who also has school and exams to worry about.


My impression from reading your posts here, and elsewhere such as
freebsd-ia64, is that you are enthusiastic but want some guidance.

Can I make some suggestions:

Find a small piece of work to do, maybe a few days.  This will help you
learn the tools and build your confidence, and also get a perspective on
the work required for bigger projects.

There is only one line about UFS in the FreeBSD Developers' Handbook.
Maybe you could write a couple of pages about it for the documentation
project.  At least knowing how it interfaces to the kernel is an
important step in designing and adding a new file system.


Meanwhile I can research what is required to implement JFS.

Then, say, after Christmas we can get together and try to make a plan
for adding JFS to FreeBSD.


Regards,
   Tony

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Terry Lambert]

Tony wrote:
> 1.  "JFS only operates on meta-data ... It does not log file data or
> recover this data to a consistent state."  [JFS overview]

Yes.

> "The logging style introduces a synchronous write to the log disk
> into each inode or vfs operation that modifies meta-data."  [JFS
> overview]

This is actually only for small directories an immediate metadata;
most operations are in facted journalled, instead.  Realize also
that, though it doesn't do it, the synchronicity is once again an
issue of ordered writes... so Soft Updates could be applied here.


> This doesn't sound any more robust than FreeBSD's current
> Softupdates.  JFS wins though as fsck is faster on a reboot ...

They actually discuss the failure modes for JFS, which include most
reasons you would need to run an fsck.  For a relatively quiescent
system, the consistancy will be restored via journal pass, but if
the journal consistency is bad, then it will do a full fsck.  So it
is likely to be necessary on IDE disks, which can spam sectors when
writing during a power loss (things would be better un SCSI).

Note that one of the reasons for the DC holdup time on the InterJet
was to ensure the drive write cache was flushed, so that the drive
was quiescent -- not in the middle of a write operation -- when DC
finally failed.


> Does AIX JFS log any file data?

Yes (or ratherm, it journals it).  And the EXT3 FS and BSD LFS do the
same, and so do XFS and VxFS, though the last two do lazy synchronization.


> 2.  "The minimum file system size supported by JFS is 16Mbytes."  [JFS
> overview]

Yeah, annoying, that.

> "JFS will not support diskettes as an underlying file system."  [JFS
> overview]

Just a size thing.


> I believe AIX JFS does support diskettes / removable media.

Yes, it does.


> 3.  Linux JFS does not support AIX JFS volumes. [various places]
> 
> I am not clear whether this is inherent in some data structures
> being different, or just that Linux doesn't process LVM info.

This is AIX JFS vs OS/2 JFS.  There would also be byte order issues,
since the PPX running AIX operates in Motorolla byte order (network
byte order), and not Intel byte order (wrong byte order 8^)).


> JFS on AIX is "backward compatible" with Enhanced JFS (JFS2).

JFS2 on AIX supports OS/2 JFS.


> 4.  The Linux JFS driver is noticeably incomplete [from JFS todo list]:
> o  SMP bugs.

A given.  They would need to introduce synchronization points in
their SMP to address this.  Linux SMP has similar problems in most
code requiring ordered operations.

> o  Only 4096 byte block sizes currently supported.
>(512, 1024 and 2048 should be available too.)

It's a page granularity issue, due to explicit cache coherency
requirements for an incompletely unified VM and buffer cache
implementation.  Going to the Intelk page size for the block size
was an easy cop-out on the coherency update issues.

> o  No defrag tool.

Actually, I saw one of these.  You need to read the more detailed
information, and not just the overview.

> o  FS resizing is not yet available.

It can grow them, up to the size of the aggregate.  The problem is
that the LVM support for PP spanning (aggregating aggregates) is
not there.  Also, since they currently onbly permit a single
aggregate set per partition, you tend to carve up your disks with
no space to spare.  In contrast, on OS/2 (or AIX, in the absence
of LVM and/or disk spanning for lack of additional disks), you can
have multiple aggregate sets per, so you usually end up with the
whole disk being given over to a single monolithic block with multiple
aggregate sets (one per FS).

So I think this is just an artifact on the grow, and the lack of a
defragmenter on a shrink (see above, about the defragger).


> o  Log file must be on the JFS partition.

Not really a problem.

> o  Disk quotas are not currently supported.

On FreeBSD, quotas should be implemented as a stacking layer with
namespace folding anyway.  I look at this one as "incentive".

> o  Extended Attributes and Access Control Lists are not functional.

Actually file streams are not functional, which is not the same thing.


> 5.  "JFS is still guru-friendly (meaning that you need a Linux guru on
> hand), but it will eventually grow into administrator-friendly."
> [JFS FAQ]
> 
> I'm not sure what this means, possibly just that the FS utilities
> and man pages need some work.

It means default installation using a RedHat or other Linux CDROM.

> Undoubtedly JFS on FreeBSD would be expected to work with Linux JFS
> volumes, but inter-operation with AIX JFS & JFS2 is also desirable.

AIX JFS2 is achievable.  AIX JFS is not, with that code, since it is
a subset of the AIX JFS functionality, to begin with.


> My questions at this point are:
> *  is there any IBM material, white papers or whatever, that I could
>study to find out about JFS(2) on AIX?

There are severa

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Tim Wiess]

> > This doesn't sound any more robust than FreeBSD's current
> > Softupdates.  JFS wins though as fsck is faster on a reboot ...

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I heard that Kirk (or perhaps someone else)
is continuing softupdates development with the intent of removing any
dependency for fsck.


> > Does AIX JFS log any file data?
> 
> Yes (or ratherm, it journals it).  And the EXT3 FS and BSD LFS do the
> same, and so do XFS and VxFS, though the last two do lazy synchronization.

Actually, for the record, XFS only logs file metadata.


> > *  where is a good place to start learning about FreeBSD file systems,
> >specifically UFS?

Well, if you have a copy of the "Daemon Book", chapters 6 - 8 would probably
be a good place to start. Also, for geneneral FS design I highly recommend
Dominic Giampaolo's book "Practical File System Design".

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD

[Bob Willcox]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 06:28:56PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 22:45:22 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Hiten Pandya wrote:
> >> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> >> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
> >
> > Not unless you have plans.  When I was an IBM employee, they would
> > not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM
> > where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and
> > still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts.
> >
> > I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up.
> 
> Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
> before booting the kernel.  This means that, theoretically, it would
> be possible to have a JFS root file system.  Given the strong
> opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
> see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
> if it will buy us anything.
> 
> >> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> >> for high performance and maximum throughput...
> >
> > No, it's not.  The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
> > the good AIX JFS code.
> 
> That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so
> it's not as if it's second-rate.  From what I've seen of the
> structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1.  I haven't compared
> performance.

I happened to be with IBM working on AIX (I was the AIX architecture
manager at the time) during the development of the original JFS (for
AIX 3.1 on the first RS/6000s). Its design and implementation were
largely the result of the efforts of a single person (Al Chang) from
IBM research, who was also the primary designer/developer for the
VM system for AIX 3.1. Consequently, the JFS code was designed to
take advantage of the specific VM implementation (and the underlying
RS/6000 VM hardware). This resulted in a rather unportable code base.
Additionally, since it was derived from AT&T (and BSD) filesystem
code, there were some licensing issues. As I recall, these two issues
(portability and license) were what lead to the reimplementation for
OS/2 (I wasn't involved or even very familiar with that effort though).

Bob

-- 
Bob Willcox Boucher's Observation:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   He who blows his own horn always plays the music
Austin, TX several octaves higher than originally written.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD [VOTE]

[Hiten Pandya]

Hi,

as i said also before, my intentions were never to 
cause havoc on the mailing list. :-)

In simple terms, what i am saying is, the people who
would like to port the JFS file system, should put a 
+1 in their next message and -1 if they dont like to
port JFS.

Then, i will count the votes, and if +1 outweighs -1,
then i will try to gether developers who can help me
in this task, and try to finish it by Sept. 2002.

BUT, if -1 outweighs +1, then i will cancel the
project
and live it for my spare time, and will not go around
asking everyone about it...

OR, another way of doing this would be to, just try
and get this JFS porting done by people who would like
to do it (including me), and then put it on the 
FreeBSD site.

AND, then we will see which company/corporate would
like to use the GPL version of a FreeBSD FileSystem.

Suppose, if there are very less, we abandon the
project
and forget about it.

In that way, there would be no hassle. Only people who
would like to port this File System should put a +1
in their next reply or -1 if they do not agree with
porting JFS.

Thanks.
=Hiten
=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


=
-Hiten,

Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD [VOTE]

[Greg Lehey]

On Wednesday, 12 December 2001 at  1:43:10 -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as i said also before, my intentions were never to cause havoc on
> the mailing list. :-)
>
> In simple terms, what i am saying is, the people who would like to
> port the JFS file system, should put a +1 in their next message and
> -1 if they dont like to port JFS.
>
> Then, i will count the votes, and if +1 outweighs -1, then i will
> try to gether developers who can help me in this task, and try to
> finish it by Sept. 2002.
>
> BUT, if -1 outweighs +1, then i will cancel the project and live it
> for my spare time, and will not go around asking everyone about
> it...
>
> OR, another way of doing this would be to, just try and get this JFS
> porting done by people who would like to do it (including me), and
> then put it on the FreeBSD site.

This is the traditional way to do it.  You don't need anybody's
permission :-)  You can also be sure that you won't get many replies
either way, and those you get may not be representative of the project
as a whole.

"Just Do It".

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message