Re: state or future of LFS?

[Andrew Doran <ad%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:35:17AM +0000, David Holland wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:06:14PM +0000, Andrew Doran wrote:
>  > Looking at the bigger picture, the NetBSD project would be better served by
>  > euthanizing LFS
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> Are you planning to unilaterally remove it too?

You're being a bit previous, aren't you?

>  > and bringing in a similar technology with a known working
>  > and maintained implementation, such as ZFS or HAMMER.
> 
> Neither ZFS nor Hammer is a log-structured file system. Or at least,
> as far as I know ZFS isn't; Hammer's design seems to keep changing.

I was alluding to COW as opposed to in-place update.

> I think the important structural question going forward is whether we
> should continue to pretend that it works to have lfs and ffs share the
> ufs code.

ufs has another consumer, ext2fs. From that standpoint it's more of an
aesthetic concern than anything else.