Remove NTFS kernel support

As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken even
before first
VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those
commits exposed
some problems about NTFS which are currently under
investigation.
Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the
moment.

Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible
compromise:
remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care of
the FUSE
implementation.
What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a light
on us
about what do you think about this idea and its
implications:
- Do you use NTFS?
- Are you interested in maintaining it?
- Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs
implementation? What
the kernel counter part adds?
- Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea?

Thanks,
Attilio


-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Attilio Rao wrote:
> As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken
even before first
> VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those
commits exposed
> some problems about NTFS which are currently under
investigation.
> Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the
moment.
> 
> Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible
compromise:
> remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care
of the FUSE
> implementation.
> What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a
light on us
> about what do you think about this idea and its
implications:
> - Do you use NTFS?

I use it occasionally when I need to copy files from the
Windows partition.

> - Are you interested in maintaining it?

No.

> - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs
implementation? What
> the kernel counter part adds?

No, the only reason come to mind is that one don't need to
install
separately, and thus might be good if you run -CURRENT.

> - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea?

If nobody would maintain it, as long as the FUSE NTFS
implementation is
usable I think it's a good idea to axe it in 8.0.

Cheers,
- --
Xin LI <delphijdelphij.net>	http://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHql+Hi+vbBBjt66ARAg0bAJ4lsJRyQrRGayvskC41dMCwDuwCfACf
fhca
BcYVAWhFBciKHIeEYWmDSi0=
=YhRg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

Attilio Rao wrote:
> As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken
even before first
> VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those
commits exposed
> some problems about NTFS which are currently under
investigation.
> Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the
moment.
>
> Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible
compromise:
> remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care
of the FUSE
> implementation.
> What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a
light on us
> about what do you think about this idea and its
implications:
> - Do you use NTFS?
>   

Yes, I have external NTFS USB hard drive and from time to
time I need to 
copy
some files, delete etc.

> - Are you interested in maintaining it?
> - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs
implementation?

FUSE implementation allows to write to NTFS partition, so it
is really 
useful.
However either fusefs-ntfs related stuff or kernel itself
seems like 
buggy, I'm having fatal trap/crash when I try to mount NTFS
partition in FreeBSD-7.0-PRERELEASE.

>  What
> the kernel counter part adds?
> - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea?
>   

Maybe, since there is already a port fusefs-ntfs.

Ganbold

> Thanks,
> Attilio
>
>
>   


-- 
Alex Haley was adopted!
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

> Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible
compromise:
> remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care
of the FUSE
> implementation.
> What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a
light on us
> about what do you think about this idea and its
implications:
> - Do you use NTFS?

Sometimes.

> - Are you interested in maintaining it?

Nope.

> - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs
implementation? What
> the kernel counter part adds?

FUSE would be fine by me.  I didn't realize FUSE was
available on FreeBSD --  
in the past I typically booted with a Knoppix livecd and
then tar over 
netcat to get files back to my BSD machines.  I'll use FUSE
on FreeBSD from 
now on.

> - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea?

Yep.

--
Matt Emmerton 

_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

Attilio Rao wrote:
> As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken
even before first
> VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those
commits exposed
> some problems about NTFS which are currently under
investigation.
> Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the
moment.
> 
> Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible
compromise:
> remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care
of the FUSE
> implementation.
> What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a
light on us
> about what do you think about this idea and its
implications:
> - Do you use NTFS?

When it works, yes, I use it often.

> - Are you interested in maintaining it?

EOVERMYHEAD

> - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs
implementation? What
> the kernel counter part adds?

Two, first I prefer to eat our own dog food, and I rarely
need to write 
to the NTFS partition (although it does sometimes come in
handy). And 
second the last time I tried to use it in -current it
panicked too, but 
that was some time ago.

> - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea?

I think we should do it right, or not do it in the base. We
should have 
_one_ working implementation, if that is FUSE then that's
fine with me.

Doug

-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

* Attilio Rao <attiliofreebsd.org> [080206
17:00] wrote:
> As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken
even before first
> VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those
commits exposed
> some problems about NTFS which are currently under
investigation.
> Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the
moment.
> 
> Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible
compromise:
> remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care
of the FUSE
> implementation.
> What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a
light on us
> about what do you think about this idea and its
implications:
> - Do you use NTFS?
> - Are you interested in maintaining it?
> - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs
implementation? What
> the kernel counter part adds?
> - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea?

My pragmatic view on this is that I think it's odd that
something
that is sort-of working for a few people is going to be axed
by
people that don't use it, while promising to replace it with
something
better.

Maybe a nicer way of saying/asking would be to ask:

Is the FUSE replacement going to be tested to the point
where it's
better than then current NTFS code?

thanks,
-- 
- Alfred Perlstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> Maybe a nicer way of saying/asking would be to ask:
> 
> Is the FUSE replacement going to be tested to the point
where it's
> better than then current NTFS code?

Given that the current NTFS code in the base panics within
minutes of 
any kind of serious access, and has the ability to take the
other 
filesystems down with it (including UFS2) that won't be
hard.

Doug

-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On Feb 7, 2008 9:18 AM, Doug Barton <dougbfreebsd.org> wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > Maybe a nicer way of saying/asking would be to
ask:
> >
> > Is the FUSE replacement going to be tested to the
point where it's
> > better than then current NTFS code?
>
> Given that the current NTFS code in the base panics
within minutes of
> any kind of serious access, and has the ability to take
the other
> filesystems down with it (including UFS2) that won't be
hard.

Please keep in mind, that the current FUSE port to FreeBSD
is lagging
behind and I can reproducibly panic -CURRENT using
fuse-ntfs, too.

Nevertheless, I think FUSE is the way to go. Perhaps someone
could
port the NetBSD interface for it to FreeBSD, so we can ship
a kernel
with FUSE preinstalled (sans GPL).

Cheers,
Uli
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

2008/2/7, Alfred Perlstein <alfredfreebsd.org>:
> * Attilio Rao <attiliofreebsd.org> [080206
17:00] wrote:
>  > As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be
broken even before first
>  > VFS commits happeing around the end of December.
Those commits exposed
>  > some problems about NTFS which are currently
under investigation.
>  > Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained
at the moment.
>  >
>  > Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a
possible compromise:
>  > remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take
care of the FUSE
>  > implementation.
>  > What I now propose is a small survey which can
shade a light on us
>  > about what do you think about this idea and its
implications:
>  > - Do you use NTFS?
>  > - Are you interested in maintaining it?
>  > - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs
implementation? What
>  > the kernel counter part adds?
>  > - Do you think axing the kernel support a good
idea?
>
>
> My pragmatic view on this is that I think it's odd that
something
>  that is sort-of working for a few people is going to
be axed by
>  people that don't use it, while promising to replace
it with something
>  better.
>
>  Maybe a nicer way of saying/asking would be to ask:
>
>  Is the FUSE replacement going to be tested to the
point where it's
>  better than then current NTFS code?

It is possible for you to reply without a flammable answer
to any question?
In particular in this case where it is just a polling...

Attilio


-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On Feb 7, 2008 1:00 AM, Attilio Rao <attiliofreebsd.org> wrote:
> As exposed by several users, NTFS seems to be broken
even before first
> VFS commits happeing around the end of December. Those
commits exposed
> some problems about NTFS which are currently under
investigation.
> Ultimately, This filesystem is also unmaintained at the
moment.
>
> Speaking with jeff, we agreed on what can be a possible
compromise:
> remove the kernel support for NTFS and maybe take care
of the FUSE
> implementation.
> What I now propose is a small survey which can shade a
light on us
> about what do you think about this idea and its
implications:
> - Do you use NTFS?

Yes. Important in a dual booting enviroment.

> - Are you interested in maintaining it?

I would If I had the needed knowledge in FS and Kernel. I
only have
availability to offer.

> - Do you know a good reason to not use FUSE ntfs
implementation? What
> the kernel counter part adds?

Yes: Speed.
A year ago when building my zfs box I had to migrate 500GB
of data off
NTFS. FUSE ntfs is WAY slow. I didn't do a proper benchmark
then but I
could setup something now if interest arises.
I didn't have any problems like those being reported with
CURRENT from
April 2007 if I recall the date correctly when I copied all
that data.

> - Do you think axing the kernel support a good idea?

Yes if...

Yes if FUSE ntfs can have performance on par with the
current ntfs support.
Yes if FUSE ntfs license model doesn't become an issue.
Yes because FUSE ntfs write support is neat =)


-- 
Joao Barros
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fsfreebsd.org mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-fs-unsubscribefreebsd.org"