dfunk6 at cox.net
Sat Sep 25 11:48:46 UTC 2010
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?
>>> 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.
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
More information about the freebsd-questions