On 9/25/2010 2:45 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 25/09/2010 08:32:58, Peter Boosten wrote:
On 24-9-2010 23:13, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 24/09/2010 21:05:45, Derek Funk wrote:
There was a post some time ago someone was complaining that FreeBSD
still uses and archaic filesystem and not a new FS like ext4. Some
replied, seeming like a code contributor, with a very sounded reply.
What is that reply?
ZFS
or words to that effect. Linux has nothing comparable.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23416/Native_ZFS_Port_for_Linux
:-)
Yes. Quoting that very page:
"There's still some major work to be done, so this is not
production-ready code. The ZFS Posix Layer has not been implemented yet,
therefore mounting file systems is not yet possible; direct database
access, however, is. Supposedly, KQ Infotech is working on this, but it
has been rather quiet around those parts for a while now."
What use is a filesystem you can't mount? It might be a work in
progress, but it isn't anywhere near done yet. The fact that there is
so much enthusiasm for porting the FS despite the license
incompatability just underlines the basic contention, that Linux has
nothing comparable.
Cheers,
Matthew
Thank you both for the replies. I think I remember the response from a
time ago as he stated something like: FreeBSD primary focus is server
mostly Web and Router builds and a newer pooling journalize FS does not
fit with FreeBSD's core of being the most stable and reliable while
maintaining security.
Derek
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
