GSoC proposition: multiplatform UFS2 driver

[RW]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:22:10 -0800
Dieter BSD wrote:

> Julio writes,
> > That being said, I do not like the idea of using NetBSD's UFS2
> > code. It lacks Soft-Updates, which I consider to make FreeBSD UFS2
> > second only to ZFS in desirability.
> 
> FFS has been in production use for decades.  ZFS is still wet behind
> the ears. Older versions of NetBSD have soft updates, and they work
> fine for me. I believe that NetBSD 6.0 is the first release without
> soft updates.  They claimed that soft updates was "too difficult" to
> maintain.  I find that soft updates are *essential* for data
> integrity (I don't know *why*, I'm not a FFS guru). 

NetBSD didn't simply drop soft-updates, they replaced it with
journalling, which is the approach used by practically all modern
filesystems. 

A number of people on the questions list have said that they find
UFS+SU to be considerably less robust than the journalled filesystems
of other OS's.