Yep, that's pretty much what 99.7% of people can contribute to this discussion(maybe 95% of slashdotters specifically, but still).
You can kinda go "Yay open source operating system that creates a bit of systemic competitive pressure to keep updating other open source operating systems through some really bizarre application of economics towards a system built around entirely free exchange"
FFS2 is basically the original Berkeley FFS (also known as UFS, but there are at least half a dozen incompatible filesystems called UFS, so that just gets confusing) with some extensions. It basically just increases the size of various fields in the inode data structure so that various limits are much larger. I'm not familiar with the OpenBSD implementation, but on FreeBSD it also supports soft updates (where metadata and data writes are sequenced so that the filesystem is aways consistent, although fsck
That doesn't relate to any of the (layering) changes you listed. That's a simple byproduct of ZFS being a copy-on-write (CoW) file system, unlike most other popular file systems. But there are other CoW file systems out there, which similarly have O(1) snapshots.
OpenBSD does have soft updates which are optionally enabled at mount time. It also has software RAID 0 or 1, and 1 allows more than two volumes to be mirrored, kind of like a hot spare that doesn't need rebuild time.
So it's not as full featured as ZFS, though compared to most linux filesystems the FFS and FFS2 are extremely robust at surviving unexpected power failure.
YAY for BSD (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:YAY for BSD (Score:2)
Yep, that's pretty much what 99.7% of people can contribute to this discussion(maybe 95% of slashdotters specifically, but still).
You can kinda go "Yay open source operating system that creates a bit of systemic competitive pressure to keep updating other open source operating systems through some really bizarre application of economics towards a system built around entirely free exchange"
It gets real abstract.
Re: YAY for BSD (Score:3)
If not for the lack of ZFS, I would use OpenBSD. Instead my fileserver is running FreeBSD 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
openbsd has the Unix FFS (up to about 1TB volume size) and FFS2 (up to 8 zettabytes volume size)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FFS2 is basically the original Berkeley FFS (also known as UFS, but there are at least half a dozen incompatible filesystems called UFS, so that just gets confusing) with some extensions. It basically just increases the size of various fields in the inode data structure so that various limits are much larger. I'm not familiar with the OpenBSD implementation, but on FreeBSD it also supports soft updates (where metadata and data writes are sequenced so that the filesystem is aways consistent, although fsck
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't relate to any of the (layering) changes you listed. That's a simple byproduct of ZFS being a copy-on-write (CoW) file system, unlike most other popular file systems. But there are other CoW file systems out there, which similarly have O(1) snapshots.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenBSD does have soft updates which are optionally enabled at mount time. It also has software RAID 0 or 1, and 1 allows more than two volumes to be mirrored, kind of like a hot spare that doesn't need rebuild time.
So it's not as full featured as ZFS, though compared to most linux filesystems the FFS and FFS2 are extremely robust at surviving unexpected power failure.
Re:YAY for BSD (Score:5, Funny)
It gets real abstract.
Well, which is it?
Re: (Score:3)
The former latter.