Sign! Sad world indeed.
Over here is an example of some BSD zealot wasting his time on something that no one will use.
This person's name is Brad Arrington, a former member of the OpenBSD project who was presumably kicked out due to infighting. He is now trying to port DragonflyBSD's hammerfs2 to OpenBSD possibly to create his own BSD distribution. Not only will this not be useful to anyone but there will be no support from either DragonflyBSD or OpenBSD due to conflicting politics, purism and BSD dogma.
The fact that it's hammerfs just makes it sadder (worst then contributing nothing). HammerFS was claimed by Mathew Dillon as an answer to ZFS thus promoting it as one of the new generation file systems including BTRFS, RieserFS and (future Microsoft failure) ReFS. But this is can't be further from the true as HammerFS still lacks compared to ZFS and to a getter extent, BTRFS. As a matter of fact, as of 2014 BTRFS is the only one in this FS generation to be full production ready. ZFS is production ready of Solaris which has been deservingly acquired by Oracle and Linux. Contrary to BSD folklore ZFS is not Production ready on any of the BSDs. Hammerfs is even less production ready. If one looks at the details more closely, Hammerfs is nothing more then UFS2 on steroids but worse.
Another problem is the operating system OpenBSD. it's kernel is simply incapable of handling even a file system which partially fits into BTRFS's generation of file systems. Much less a file system which truly fits into that generation. This can be seen in Brad Arrington's github page where he has successfully compiled OpenBSD binaries of the tools for hammerfs but fails to mount any HammerFS partition successfully. This is due solely to the inadequacy of the OpenBSD kernel. Sacifices will have to be made as the parts of DragonflyBSD's kernel which allow successful mounting/accessing of a Hammer partition are GPL licensed.
FreeBSD barely handles ZFS with significant performance penalties while NetBSD has failed outright for 5 years in their ZFS implementation. The only OS that handles ZFS with negligible penalties is Linux. Not even Solaris (which ZFS was designed for) could achieve such a thing.
Over here is an example of some BSD zealot wasting his time on something that no one will use.
This person's name is Brad Arrington, a former member of the OpenBSD project who was presumably kicked out due to infighting. He is now trying to port DragonflyBSD's hammerfs2 to OpenBSD possibly to create his own BSD distribution. Not only will this not be useful to anyone but there will be no support from either DragonflyBSD or OpenBSD due to conflicting politics, purism and BSD dogma.
The fact that it's hammerfs just makes it sadder (worst then contributing nothing). HammerFS was claimed by Mathew Dillon as an answer to ZFS thus promoting it as one of the new generation file systems including BTRFS, RieserFS and (future Microsoft failure) ReFS. But this is can't be further from the true as HammerFS still lacks compared to ZFS and to a getter extent, BTRFS. As a matter of fact, as of 2014 BTRFS is the only one in this FS generation to be full production ready. ZFS is production ready of Solaris which has been deservingly acquired by Oracle and Linux. Contrary to BSD folklore ZFS is not Production ready on any of the BSDs. Hammerfs is even less production ready. If one looks at the details more closely, Hammerfs is nothing more then UFS2 on steroids but worse.
Another problem is the operating system OpenBSD. it's kernel is simply incapable of handling even a file system which partially fits into BTRFS's generation of file systems. Much less a file system which truly fits into that generation. This can be seen in Brad Arrington's github page where he has successfully compiled OpenBSD binaries of the tools for hammerfs but fails to mount any HammerFS partition successfully. This is due solely to the inadequacy of the OpenBSD kernel. Sacifices will have to be made as the parts of DragonflyBSD's kernel which allow successful mounting/accessing of a Hammer partition are GPL licensed.
FreeBSD barely handles ZFS with significant performance penalties while NetBSD has failed outright for 5 years in their ZFS implementation. The only OS that handles ZFS with negligible penalties is Linux. Not even Solaris (which ZFS was designed for) could achieve such a thing.
Comment