Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Operating Systems BSD Hardware

UFS2 Now Default Creation Type in FreeBSD 34

Posted by Hemos from the create-well-my-padiwan dept.
Dan writes "FreeBSD's Robert Watson says that effective today, newfs(8) and sysinstall(8) will create UFS2 file systems by default, unless explicitly specified. Users wanting to create UFS1 file systems for whatever reason (interoperability with earlier versions, etc) should be sure to employ the -O1 flag to newfs(8), or hit '1' in the label editor in sysinstall(8) to select UFS1."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UFS2 Now Default Creation Type in FreeBSD More

UFS2 Now Default Creation Type in FreeBSD

Comments Filter:

  • Is it just me ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum AT gmail DOT com> on Monday April 21, 2003 @07:27AM (#5772357) Homepage Journal
    ... or does a 256-byte inode seem just a bit ... well ... excessive?

    • Re:Is it just me ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @09:37AM (#5772788) Homepage
      Its excessive for now, but thinking about the future. With AMD coming out with a 64bit cpu, and maybe Intel might counter with a 128 bit (!) cpu for the servers, the address space grows. With that, and LVMed 200GB harddisks, and gigs and gigs of ram, we need scalability till FreeBSD 6.0.
      • ...maybe Intel might counter with a 128 bit (!) cpu for the servers...

        128-bit CPUs probably won't appear for decades. Even today, I have a 64-bit workstation (going on five years old, now), and no program I actively use other than the kernel itself is 64-bit. They're all still 32-bit, because 4GB of RAM is more than enough for my work.

        Additionally, it'll be a while before even the biggest servers can exhaust the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of RAM theoretically available to 64-bit CPUs. If that
        • 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes ought to be enough for everybody!

          A Culture Mind has somewhere in the region of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes (about 1,000,000YB) of memory. 128 bits are enough to reference the memory of about 340 million such Minds; 64bits would run out before you'd got past the first 0.00000000001% of the first Mind. No prizes for guessing which filesystem such godlike AI's will be using ;)
        • You sound so like Gates when he said 1MB ram should be enough for everyone.

          Apart from the addressing space, theres also the wider IO, and replacing say MMX which is a hack to widen the bus. I know I cant think of much on how to use a 128bit CPU right now, but moores law has been evasive.

  • Gentoo Zealot Translator (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Official Gentoo-Linux-Zealot translator-o-matic

    NetBSD rules! Anyway, Gentoo Linux is an interesting new distribution with some great features. Unfortunately, it has attracted a large number of clueless wannabes who absolutely MUST advocate Gentoo at every opportunity. Let's look at the language of these zealots, and find out what it really means...

    "Gentoo makes me so much more productive."
    "Although I can't use the box at the moment because it's compiling something, as it will be for the n

  • A quick point (Score:5, Informative)

    by bofkentucky ( 555107 ) <bofkentucky.gmail@com> on Monday April 21, 2003 @09:15AM (#5772692) Homepage Journal
    This is for FreeBSD 5.x, FreeBSD 4.x is still using UFS1

  • UFS is dying (Score:4, Funny)

    by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @11:01AM (#5773269) Homepage
    It is official; Robert Watson now confirms: UFS is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered UFS community when Robert Watson confirmed that UFS market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all filesystems. Coming on the heels of a recent FreeBSD survey which plainly states that UFS has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. UFS is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent comprehensive filesystem test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict UFS's future. The hand writing is on the wall: UFS faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for UFS because UFS is dying. Things are looking very bad for UFS. As many of us are already aware, UFS continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    All major surveys show that UFS has steadily declined in market share. UFS is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If UFS is to survive at all it will be among OpenBSD dabblers. UFS continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, UFS is dead.

    Fact: UFS is dying

    I feel dirty...
    • For all practical purposes, UFS is dead.

      Wait, my Sun workstation uses UFS...NO CARRIER.

      <the haunting sound of one-handed clapping ensues from the Slashdot crowd and pmz's ego sinks into oblivion>

    • You know, UFS may not be dying, but any compatability with Linux (mount -o ufstype=wtfthisweek?!?!?) is out the window.

      Correct me if I'm wrong [I'm on dialup, no iso for me. :~(].
    • Actually, UFS is nearly a universal filesystem!!! UFS is obviously available on all the BSDs, which includes Darwin, and Mac OS X. It's also available on Linux, Solaris, and I presume every other Unix OS. The one place UFS doesn't work, is on Windows, which is as unfortunate limitation. I'm not versed in Windows programming, so I can only hope to find out that someone wrote a UFS filesystem driver for Windows.

      There is only one other filesystem that is more universal, and that is the ilustrious FAT32.
  • I thought that the Freely available BSDs used Berkley FFS by default?

    Polaris# cat /etc/fstab
    /dev/sd0a / ffs rw 1 1

    Polaris# mount
    /dev/sd0a on / type ffs (local)

    One in the same or different? Or there are slight variations between the BSDs default FS? How does UFS2 compare to FFS with soft-updates?
    • UFS == FFS. Its a slightly different name/acronym for the same thing. NetBSD/OpenBSD completed a tree-wide sweep and changed all UFS references to FFS for consistency. FreeBSD still (mostly) calls it UFS. "Fast File System" is not much better than "Unix File System". "Berkeley Fast File System" (BFFS) would be most correct.

      How do they compare? They all pretty much use the same on-disk format. There were some relatively recent changes (dirpref) that started using some previously unused space. I thin

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close