Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torvalds: User-Space File-Systems, Toys, Misguided People

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    and with ntfs you need third party drivers in linux.

    Who uses XP anyway? That is so 2001....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by energyman View Post
      and with ntfs you need third party drivers in linux.

      Who uses XP anyway? That is so 2001....
      ntfs-3g isn't a "third-party" driver anymore:

      1. FUSE, which it depends on, is part of the mainline kernel and enabled by default on all distros (can anyone find a current distribution that does not ship FUSE, by default, as either a module or built-in? Old versions of RHEL doesn't count! )

      2. ntfs-3g, the userspace portion, is (at least in Ubuntu) part of the `main' repository. Its maintainer is the "Ubuntu Core Developers", which includes many Canonical employees. You can even go as far as paying Canonical engineers to support (patch, bugfix, etc) ntfs-3g for enterprise installations, because it's covered by the blanket support contracts available for main repository packages. For Fedora, ntfs-3g maintainership falls on "spot", who is the official Fedora engineering manager.

      3. If I'm not mistaken, ntfs-3g is even available on the Ubuntu Live CD. That's saying something. It's so important to have read/write NTFS functionality that they felt it was worth including in their limited ~700MB CD image. Wow!

      I agree about the XP comment, though: if UDF is read/write in Windows 7, that's all I'd care about.

      Comment


      • #33
        ntfs3g is hosted by whom? yes, tuxera. Third party, I rest my case.

        With reiser, ext, xfs, udf you don't need somebodies else stuff to be able to deal with the data.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by energyman View Post
          ntfs3g is hosted by whom? yes, tuxera. Third party, I rest my case.

          With reiser, ext, xfs, udf you don't need somebodies else stuff to be able to deal with the data.
          ntfs-3g is not "hosted" by Tuxera, when it's part of a Linux distribution. It's "hosted" by the distribution, on their servers. I'd never even heard of Tuxera until this article, and I've been using ntfs-3g since 2007.

          By your logic, reiserfs is third-party because it's worked on by Namesys; btrfs is third-party because it's worked on by Oracle; mesa is third-party because it's worked on by VMware, Red Hat and ATI; and GNOME is third-party because it's worked on by Novell, Collabora, Intel and Red Hat.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by movieman View Post
            NTFS doesn't do data journalling, does it?
            This question bugged me, I wanted to be able to provide a definitive answer. So I did some research. The answer is "kinda".

            From wiki and pedia, it looks like the $NtfsLog does full metadata journaling, and the USN Journal does partial data journaling. But no, it appears that a full copy of every written piece of data is not stored in the journal so that the transaction could be undone if needed.

            So the answer is that NTFS doesn't really do data journaling. Why? Most likely, for performance. This might also be why Tuxera's NTFS driver is able to be so fast -- because the filesystem they're implementing has the unique "property" of not doing data journaling, which AFAIK ext4, xfs, reiserfs, and btrfs all do. Data journaling is probably extremely expensive, because you have to keep around more than one copy of your data.

            Heh, and you could (if you really wanted) take the data journaling concept one step further with NILFS2. That filesystem adopts a sort of "rotating deck of cards" approach: it's almost like using git for your entire filesystem. You can undelete files long after you've blown them away, because they're in a previous snapshot. Heh.

            Comment


            • #36
              junk

              There's been an Ext2 driver for Win32 for years. explore2fs
              There has also been a Reiserfs readonly driver written in .Net. Yareg-1.0

              I find Windows drivers to be more stable with the video games.

              Fuse file-systems are the least of the problems in Linux.

              #1 The whole graphics subsystem: It's 2011, where's the medibuntu for restricted graphics support S3tc ...

              #2 Wireless support: regressions in the at5k driver for 2.6.38 blow

              #3 Make up your mind about Xorg: monolithic or modular, autoconfiguring or xorg.conf

              #4 Kernel ABI changes == lame and pointless; other than pissing off developers but hey maybe that is their intent. That's why Redhat is stuck on 2.6.18 for the majority of it's customers.

              oh who cares, l8r

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
                This question bugged me, I wanted to be able to provide a definitive answer. So I did some research. The answer is "kinda".

                From wiki and pedia, it looks like the $NtfsLog does full metadata journaling, and the USN Journal does partial data journaling. But no, it appears that a full copy of every written piece of data is not stored in the journal so that the transaction could be undone if needed.

                So the answer is that NTFS doesn't really do data journaling. Why? Most likely, for performance. This might also be why Tuxera's NTFS driver is able to be so fast -- because the filesystem they're implementing has the unique "property" of not doing data journaling, which AFAIK ext4, xfs, reiserfs, and btrfs all do. Data journaling is probably extremely expensive, because you have to keep around more than one copy of your data.

                Heh, and you could (if you really wanted) take the data journaling concept one step further with NILFS2. That filesystem adopts a sort of "rotating deck of cards" approach: it's almost like using git for your entire filesystem. You can undelete files long after you've blown them away, because they're in a previous snapshot. Heh.
                well as mentioned in some earlier post, the tuxera driver developer also tried benchmarking fat32 with journaling (i'm not really sure how that's supposed to work...) and that lost a pretty big chunk of speed. i don't think journaling really causes that great of a performance drop though. if it made as much as 33% performance difference or more i think the developers would give easy access options to disable it, especially considering that drives such as SSDs have a definite lifespan and are much more expensive per GB.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
                  ntfs-3g is not "hosted" by Tuxera, when it's part of a Linux distribution. It's "hosted" by the distribution, on their servers. I'd never even heard of Tuxera until this article, and I've been using ntfs-3g since 2007.

                  By your logic, reiserfs is third-party because it's worked on by Namesys; btrfs is third-party because it's worked on by Oracle; mesa is third-party because it's worked on by VMware, Red Hat and ATI; and GNOME is third-party because it's worked on by Novell, Collabora, Intel and Red Hat.

                  yes, they are third party from the POV of the kernel.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    "Third-party" is understood as something that doesn't come with the system. On Windows, almost everything is third-party. By default, MS gives a minimal system that is worth crap without installing something useful on it.

                    In Linux, a whole load of software comes with the installation. From that point of view, it's not third-party. So in Linux, you don't need third-party software to access NTFS file systems. Everything comes included.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                      In Linux, a whole load of software comes with the installation. From that point of view, it's not third-party. So in Linux, you don't need third-party software to access NTFS file systems. Everything comes included.
                      That's wholly untrue when it comes to support. If something is broken in Fedora/Ubuntu/Insert Distro Here and it's not a code directly produced by that distribution then it's outsourced to the real developers. That's the third party litmus test. Who writes and maintains the code? If it doesn't include the distribution developers, it's third party. And yes, there is some gray area here, like when Redhat contributes to a larger project like xorg. But by large most of the code on your average distribution is third party, no matter how the code is installed.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by drag View Post
                        A hybrid kernel is a term made up to cover for the fact that Apple was full of shit about using a Microkernel from day one.

                        Microsoft actually had the balls to try to put a microkernel into production. NT, for very early versions, actually had a microkernel. But they figured out why Linus was right and abandoned that design.

                        They may retain some 'microkernel'-isms here and there, but they are not Microkernels by any stretch of the imagination.

                        This is a good thing as Microkernels are much larger, much more complex, and much slower then monolythic.
                        Why do people keep repeating the same myths about microkernels? These myths have been proven false but they keep persisting and people keep repeating them.

                        Microkernels aren't more complex , in fact the whole point behind microkernels is for a more reliable and simpler design overall by separating things into lots of simpler services.

                        Micro-kernels aren't slower , yes some were slower but that was due to poor design decisions to do with process handling and inter-process communication. There are simple solutions to handling that. If one adopts the simple solution of switching to the IPC destination instead of letting the scheduler treat it like a normal scheduling event , we avoid the slowdown because we avoid the latency of having to wait for two additional scheduler rounds.

                        When it comes to size, there isn't any significant penalty in either memory usage or lines of code , and memory usage can be smaller due to only having the necessary services and drivers loaded, and loading them on demand.

                        Micro-kernels require paying attention to process handling , inter-process communication and memory management but you need to pay attention to them anyway since they are exactly the same things you need to pay attention to when it comes to multi-{threaded/process} programs.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Ze.. View Post
                          Why do people keep repeating the same myths about microkernels? These myths have been proven false but they keep persisting and people keep repeating them.
                          Any proofs?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by energyman View Post
                            and with ntfs you need third party drivers in linux.

                            Who uses XP anyway? That is so 2001....
                            Simple, all the people who owns a Windows XP disk and managed to avoid later reincarnations of Microsoft OSs.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by kraftman
                              Any proofs?
                              Just google either for "Minix" or "Coyotos" (sadly defunct due to the creator taking a job elsewhere) and you'll find plenty of information about microkernels, their advantages and how their challenges are approached.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Wingfeather View Post
                                Just google either for "Minix" or "Coyotos" (sadly defunct due to the creator taking a job elsewhere) and you'll find plenty of information about microkernels, their advantages and how their challenges are approached.
                                You'll also note that although Minix inspired Linux, Linux did not adopt the same microkernel design. Generally speaking in the past it seems to have added a lot of complexity for little real-world benefit, though as the number of CPU cores continues to increase we may have to switch to a more distributed kernel model to make best use of them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X