Re: [dev] JFS filesystem

From: stephen Turner <stephen.n.turner_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2019 14:37:14 -0400

I am an amateur here and follow mostly to learn from you all, but I did like some of the ideas in btrfs. Being able to add ssd’s for “cache” with spinning disks for long term and the system manage moving the data between the two based on use, auto repairs during use, data checks and corrections, backups, etc. Granted these were features more for a server but maybe a file system could be developed where the standard is pc based features with a patch or add on pack for server level features?

I think you do something similar now for dwm?

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 21, 2019, at 8:40 AM, Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

niedz., 21 kwi 2019 o 12:48 Igor Rubel <igor_AT_rubel.tel> napisał(a):
>
> Hello!
>
> What do you think about union mounting and UnionFS in particular?

I really like this idea. This is the Plan 9's bind implementation. You
can mount many different sources in one directory. Imagine that your
login program also creates new namespaces for you. All programs are
clustered in one /bin, and all libs in one /lib... manuals in /man
etc.

But with or without unionfs, you still need a filesystem :) I would
like to have one scalable and light file system and it turns out to be
a challenge. In my opinion, JFS looks the most interesting (as a light
filesystem). It has some key gaps vs. ext4. On the other hand, it is
very consistent - there is only what should be and nothing more.

I wonder if I should not rewrite jfsutils (as it was done in sbase).
And that's why I'm asking here for feedback about what others think
about file systems and what their view is on JFS, as a universal file
system.

Thx,
Daniel
Received on Sun Apr 21 2019 - 20:37:14 CEST