Matthew Seaman m.seaman at
Sat Sep 25 07:45:28 UTC 2010

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.
> :-)

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.



Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
                                                  Flat 3
PGP:     Ramsgate
JID: matthew at               Kent, CT11 9PW

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 267 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url :

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list