Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Software Linux

Tru64 Unix Advanced File System (AdvFS) Now GPL 226

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the yet-another-convert dept.
melios writes "In a move that could help boost the scalability of Linux for grids and other advanced 64-bit multiprocessor applications, HP has released its Tru64 Unix Advanced File System (AdvFS) source code to the open source community. Source code, design documentation, and test suites for AdvFS are available on SourceForge."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tru64 Unix Advanced File System (AdvFS) Now GPL

Comments Filter:
  • Sheesh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by adolf (21054) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Monday June 23, 2008 @02:52PM (#23908229) Journal

    Allow me to be the first to say: It's about fucking time.

  • What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tjstork (137384) <todd@bandrowsky.gmail@com> on Monday June 23, 2008 @02:56PM (#23908299) Homepage Journal

    Is there some reason to pick this file system over any of the other 100 file systems you can get for Linux?

    • by cephah (1244770) on Monday June 23, 2008 @02:59PM (#23908349)
      This one is -- advanced, so it must be good, right? Right?
    • by eclectro (227083) on Monday June 23, 2008 @02:59PM (#23908353)

      because it's not a "killer" filesystem?

    • by bsDaemon (87307) on Monday June 23, 2008 @02:59PM (#23908355)

      i dunno... no wifi, less space than ZFS. lame!

    • Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cyberax (705495) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:02PM (#23908401)

      AdvFS is comparable in features to ZFS - it has snapshotting, intelligent striping and mirroring, dynamic resizing, etc.

      In short, there's no comparable production filesystem in Linux right now. There's Btrfs from Oracle, but it's in deep alpha.

      • Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:16PM (#23908601)

        Nah dude, SGI's xfs (in vanilla Linux since ages now) can do all of those tricks, too.

      • Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Paul Jakma (2677) <paul+slashdot@jakma.org> on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:33PM (#23908835) Homepage Journal

        It doesn't have the Merkle tree and the associated error-detection properties of ZFS though.

        Also, AdvFS (or PolyFS, as I could swear it was called in the beginning - though Google can't seem to any record of it) had a pretty bad reliability record in its earlier days, at least bad enough that its unreliability still was mentioned in DEC Open Systems Support when I visited there in 2000.. (by which stage Tru64 clearly was on life-support). ;)

        • by master5o1 (1068594) on Monday June 23, 2008 @05:18PM (#23910181) Homepage
          I have a Merkle tree growing in my backyard.
        • Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Macka (9388) on Monday June 23, 2008 @06:40PM (#23911007)

          It doesn't have the Merkle tree and the associated error-detection properties of ZFS though.

          Also, AdvFS (or PolyFS, as I could swear it was called in the beginning - though Google can't seem to any record of it) had a pretty bad reliability record in its earlier days, at least bad enough that its unreliability still was mentioned in DEC Open Systems Support when I visited there in 2000.. (by which stage Tru64 clearly was on life-support). ;)

          It was pretty flakey around Tru64 v4, but got a major re-write for Tru64 v5 which cleared up the problems and made it very stable after that. Today, it's the most stable filesystem I've ever used. And you're right about the Poly stuff. There was a marketing drive which fortunately didn't last very long where they tried to brand it as the Polyserve filesystem, then it got changed. Even Polyserve was an improvement on its birth name, the MegaSafe Filesystem. You can still see remnants of that in the Tru64 kernel config file: its the options MSFS line that triggers inclusion of AdvFS into the kernel. The word MegaSafe also crops up all over the source tree too. Go take a look ;-)
      • Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mhall119 (1035984) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:40PM (#23908951) Homepage Journal

        Hopefully this will make Sun re-consider licensing ZFS under the GPLv2.

        • Hopefully this will make Sun re-consider licensing ZFS under the GPLv2.

          Doubtful. GPLv3 is too nice a license for them to reject just because Linus is being bullheaded.

          • Linus was bullheaded about the licence originally, but he isn't being bullheaded now. He can't change the kernel to be GPLv3 compatible after the fact.
          • Not just Linus being bullhead. He shot himself in the foot by sticking to a fixed GPLv2 license. AFAIK to relicense to GPLv3 would require contacting all authors to see if they accept the change of license. Which is how many hundreds of people?
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by tietokone-olmi (26595)

              Well, I guess that's what one gets for distrusting the FSF.

              Linus is apparently vulnerable to close friends whispering things in his ear. Take Larry McVoy for instance: far as I know, mr. Torvalds supported BitKeeper until McVoy terminated the free license; that is to say, Linus was perfectly fine with all the competition-restricting license details and the use of proprietary software to manage a Free Software project. And if you remember, back in 0.x and 1.x days, things like sound card drivers for Linux us

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                Well, I guess that's what one gets for distrusting the FSF.
                Not to troll, but why trust the FSF with the ability to relicense your code as you see fit? The relative value of the GPLv3 is, in this case, irrelevant to Linus's line of thinking.
                 
                And seriously--BitKeeper worked for Linus's needs. He's a pragmatist, not an idealist.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  The poster you are replying to:

                  ... a person whose principles and strength of character are lacking.

                  You:

                  He's a pragmatist, not an idealist.

                  It apparently escaped you that these are pretty much one and the same thing.

                  An idealist, for example, is a politician who would try to stick to his beliefs even when sniper's bullets are whizzing next to his head. A "pragmatist" is a politician who will take all the lobbyist money he can get his paws on (after all this is the "reality" of politics, surely?), promise

      • Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Znork (31774) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:56PM (#23909205)

        it has snapshotting, intelligent striping and mirroring, dynamic resizing

        Eh, exactly which feature is unique? Snapshotting, striping, mirroring, resizing, encryption, etc, all of it can be done through the device mapper stack.

        I have situations where I don't want any filesystem at all on the mixed chunks (shared iSCSI block devices, for example), others where I want partial mirrors, parts crypted, parts remote-synced, etc. Mixing block device, volume management and filesystem together in my opinion, simply bad engineering. There are far too many assumptions about what people usually do so you end up with something suitable only for exactly what the designer had in mind, and worse, sometimes completely unsuitable for what people actually do.

        Having run both AdvFS and ZFS, I _vastly_ prefer the layered approach of ext3/LVM/md/etc.

        there's no comparable production filesystem

        Yes, well, try actually running ZFS in production for a while with any kind of odd load (and some not so odd loads at all). Sometimes things just aren't all they're hyped up to be.

        Filesystems are one part of most systems where 'exciting' isn't the most desirable feature.

        • Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anarke_Incarnate (733529) on Monday June 23, 2008 @04:16PM (#23909499)
          ZFS is an excellent filesystem but with some serious bugs that are poorly documented. I will admit I have not played with it in a while, but when I did, there were a considerable number of growing pains and kernel tunables that needed to be tweaked to get it to play nicely. The read block size is 128K by default, the ARC buffer size is ridiculously designed to assume that you want to cache data, filesystem syncs run to check integrity even if you have disk integrity checks on the SAN, etc.
        • by profplump (309017)

          Hear hear! I think snapshots, mirrors, stripes, encryption, compression and resizing are all very useful things. But I'd like my file system to stick to managing files and use the volume and block layers to provide those features under any file system.

          • Hear hear! I think snapshots, mirrors, stripes, encryption, compression and resizing are all very useful things.
            Thank you! Finally someone wrote "Hear hear!" instead of "Here here!".
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            I think snapshots, mirrors, stripes, encryption, compression and resizing are all very useful things.

            Got it.

            But I'd like my file system to stick to managing files and use the volume and block layers to provide those features under any file system.

            How, exactly, should the block layer provide resizing or compression?

            I mean, yes, you can do snapshots -- clumsily, as you have to set aside space for it (can't just stuff it into free space on that volume) -- and that's inherent in the nature of the device-mapper. There's no way for DM to know which blocks are free -- that's the filesystem's job.

            And yes, you should be able to do compression at the block level -- or at least, read-only compression, as we see on livecds these days. How would you add

        • by TeknoHog (164938)

          Having run both AdvFS and ZFS, I _vastly_ prefer the layered approach of ext3/LVM/md/etc.

          As a unix user, I generally prefer a layered approach. How did something like ZFS manage to come from unix people for unix, rather than from our friends in Redmond?

          • by Fweeky (41046)

            Erm, ZFS is layered; you can put UFS or ext2 or.. whatever, on top of a zpool, complete with RAID, checksumming, copy on write, etc (features which all fit well together in that layer). I don't really see how it's any different from LVM, except zvol's happen to be able to do a bit more between the devices they consume and the devices they provide.

    • Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Vectronic (1221470) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:14PM (#23908583)

      Comparison Of File Systems [wikipedia.org]

      Although its missing from some of the charts...

      AdvFS [wikipedia.org]

      And that page is rather limited in information.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by raddan (519638)
      If you don't need to know the difference, then no. But there are plenty of people who have specific requirements, and I'm glad that Linux supports them. E.g., we pay to have our Linux machines use CVFS (StorNext) and associated daemons, because we require its features. A GPL'ed CVFS suite would be awesome, but I can understand why Quantum wouldn't want to do it.
    • Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nutria (679911) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:59PM (#23909257)

      Is there some reason to pick this file system over any of the other 100 file systems you can get for Linux?

      AdvFS is a clustered FS.

  • Cool (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2008 @02:58PM (#23908327)

    The last file system I messed around with was absolute murder.

  • I appreciate what they're doing, and I sincerely hope that it becomes a viable option within the next 6 months or so.

    Cause I'm not using it for anything mission critical before that, anyway.

  • AdvFS (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrMunkey (1039894) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:00PM (#23908367) Homepage
    I didn't know any of the details of what AdvFS was, so here is what Wikipedia has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdvFS [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BrentH (1154987)
      Thanks. Still I have one question: does it do background filechecks (against a built-in checksum) like ZFS does?
  • by TimothyDavis (1124707) <tumuchspaam@hotmail.com> on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:00PM (#23908379)
    ...I hear WinFS will be in Win7...it should be legendary.
  • Will linux need to make it "more enterprise ready"?

    I think we see this claim to fame almost weekly yet it seems less and less reliance on OS filesystems and more reliance on SAN/Hardware/NAS/NFS storage.

    OS filesystem improvements are welcome sight but the headline seems sensational as if all the other filesystems are actually holding adoption back. (which seems absurd)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by afidel (530433)
      What do you think actually powers many of those SAN/Hardware/NAS/NFS file servers, Linux of course. I really don't think the lack of file systems is holding Linux back, but having more of them that fit into more niches is sure to mean more adoption because Linux will be the hammer that fits the nail for those users.
  • by mihalis (28146) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:02PM (#23908403) Homepage

    I just had a quick glance through the wikipedia page on this filesystem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdvFS [wikipedia.org]
    and it seems to share a surprising number of features with ZFS
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS [wikipedia.org]
    For example, pools, snapshots etc.

    Cool, license squabbling aside I look forward to the massively fragmented UNIX codebase slowly coalescing in this area.

  • I'd love to hear Mark Crispin's comments on this.

  • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:05PM (#23908443) Homepage

    ...all I can say is that this would have been amazing news about ten years ago. Even five years ago it would have been pretty great.

    Now? Well, it sounds like HPaq is just kicking it to the curb so it will probably be another year or two before anyone can beat it into a working filesystem for anything but HPucks. There is already no shortage of file systems that can do what AdvFS could do, so by the time it is ready for prime time prime time will have moved on.

    Oh well. 1998 me is still pleased to hear this.

    • by rahvin112 (446269) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:17PM (#23908607)

      Linux Weekly News [lwn.net] has a comment from an HP developer indicating they aren't putting this out there so it can become a linux file system, but so that the lessons learned and parts of the code that are useful can be incorporated into one of the linux file systems of the future. I took it to mean, take our code and use whatever you can to make ext4 or ext5.
       
       

      While it would be fine with HP if someone wants to "port" AdvFS to Linux or any other
      operating system with a GPLv2 compatible license, this contribution is not intended to
      "compete" with other existing file system projects underway in and around the kernel.org
      development community.

      Rather, our hope is that the algorithms, design documentation, and test suite now available at
      the AdvFS site... and the active participation of HP engineers in various open-source file
      system projects who have lots of AdvFS experience... will help to accelerate the inclusion of
      AdvFS-like enterprise features and capabilities in next-generation file systems for Linux.

    • by fm6 (162816) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:17PM (#23908613) Homepage Journal

      Oh well. 1998 me is still pleased to hear this.
      Is 1998 you still on the line? Warn him that Star Trek: Insurrection really sucks!
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by youngdev (1238812)

        you have a chance to impart some great information to someone of the past and you want to be a film critic? How lame.

        • by fm6 (162816)

          This is Slashdot! "News for nerds, stuff that matters." What could matter more to a nerd than a bad Star Trek film?!

          • by afidel (530433)
            It was pre-ordained, Insurrection was film #9 and all Trek fans know that the odd numbered films suck.
            • by Tetsujin (103070)

              It was pre-ordained, Insurrection was film #9 and all Trek fans know that the odd numbered films suck.
              Except the first one.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:37PM (#23908891)

        That's all you'd tell your 1998 self?!?? I'd tell mine to invest heavily in the DotComs so he'd lose all his money...it'd be hilarious like that time someone told me they were my future self and that I should invest heavily in DotCom start-ups and I lost all my money!

    • by Curlsman (1041022) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:37PM (#23908893)

      This was the filesystem that HP tried to port to HPUX and failed. They licensed Veritas instead.
      I figured that the multithreading that I'd always heard worked so well in AdvFS/Tru64 was hard to port to the non-multithreaded HPUX kernel.

      http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39175690,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk]
      "It had initially planned to complete the migration of the TruCluster/AdvFS feature from Tru64 Unix to HP-UX 11i v3 in the middle of 2006."

      http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?admit=109447627+1214253121145+28353475&threadId=754760 [hp.com]
      "No TruCluster or AdvFS for HP-UX after all"

      • by dbrower (114953) on Monday June 23, 2008 @05:22PM (#23910223) Journal

        This was the filesystem that HP tried to port to HPUX and failed. They licensed Veritas instead.

        http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39175690,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk] "It had initially planned to complete the migration of the TruCluster/AdvFS feature from Tru64 Unix to HP-UX 11i v3 in the middle of 2006."

        http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?admit=109447627+1214253121145+28353475&threadId=754760 [hp.com] "No TruCluster or AdvFS for HP-UX after all"

        It probably would have made the release too, except that it got canned after it was working.

        It wasn't that HP failed to port ADVfs and trucluster to HPUX -- it was that they decided to stop it in favor of the other solution for arguably political and financial reasons. The people at HP in California were more than happy for the DEC people in New Hampshire to go away, even at the cost of licensing something that was no better than what they already owned outright, but would need to fund support for.

        One wonders why they have bothered with this release at this point.

        -dB

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Macka (9388)

          Spot on. If you download the sources, there's a README file in the advfs_gen3_src_v1 directory that says:

          This directory includes the source code for a second generation
          implementation of AdvFS, including the kernel modules, commands
          and utilities.

          This is the code that was ported to HP-UX. It is functionally
          complete and went through fairly extensive functional and stress
          testing. However, it should be considered beta quality and so
          you may spot bugs. It is recommended that you review the
          design documentation

    • by V. Mole (9567)
      it will probably be another year or two before anyone can beat it into a working filesystem for anything but HPucks.

      Nitpick: it was never released with HP-UX. It was originally developed by DEC for their Unix product, originally OSF/1, currently called Tru64.

      • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Monday June 23, 2008 @09:07PM (#23912041) Homepage

        Which would be why the subject references "Digital UNIX", which was the name used by DEC after they gave up on OSF/1. Tru64 was Compaq's name for it, because they really hated words that were spelled correctly.

        Of course if you know enough to nit-pick that then you would also know about what happened to it after the HP-Compaq merger and how the last surviving Digital engineers tried to weld useful features like AdvFS and TruCluster onto HP-UX only to have their projects canceled in favour of inferior and more expensive Carly-approved products.

        So I won't explain that, given the lineage of the code, it's probably the stuff that was ported to HP-UX.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)
      I'm pretty sure that this is just part of HP's exit strategy for the descendants of HP-SUX. They're already selling a lot of Linux. If they release it then the Linux community will almost certainly port it before Tru64's support EOL :)
  • Good News Indeed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:12PM (#23908555)

    I used ADVFS when I worked at DEC/Compaq. It is a really nice filesystem to use.
    If the utilities are GPL's as well that is even better news.

    Copying whole filesystems is a breeze as is copying filesystem trees and traversing over volume mount points ( ie not including mount points and all their files.)

    It also gives you the ability to add/remove extra space to mounted volumes just like LVM does but IMHO without having to pre allocate it.
    I would expect that some of the features may well be in EXT4 but I think that some of the Utilities could be made to use EXT4. /S
     

  • by pschmied (5648) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:13PM (#23908579) Homepage

    Certainly the Linux community doesn't really need to burn energy supporting a half dozen filesystems.

    Talk to six linux admins and you'll get at least that many "every filesystem but the one I'm using sucks!" responses.

    I'd gladly stand up for a lack of choice on the filesystem front. Pick one, make sure it's absolutely tested, make sure it supports a nice range of features.

    Integrating a filesystem into another OS is a decidedly non-trivial task unless you just want to read files.

    Thanks, HP, but I don't really want your no-longer-commercially-viable undead zombieware.

    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:25PM (#23908707) Homepage
      But then you end up with the windows situation, where they only support NTFS (or FAT32, but who uses that). I don't think that any 1 file system is optimal for all tasks that one would want to use a computer for. People use computers for many different things. It makes complete sense to have file systems that accommodate the needs of different people.
      • by pschmied (5648)

        There are a lot of problems with Windows, but one sentiment I've never heard from any Windows admin is, "Gee, I wish I could reformat all my servers to use ext3."

        Accommodating the needs of different people is great, but maybe we could accommodate the needs of different people with fewer superfluous choices which ultimately degrade the experience of all of said choices.

        Which list of subtle filesystem problems will plague this new entrant into the Linux filesystem melee?

        Windows effectively has Old FS and New

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CastrTroy (595695)
          Well, for Linux, I would say that you have Ext2, and Ext3, and that I guess Ext4, which will be the NewFS. If you aren't at all concerned with the differences, then just use EXT. I don't think a larger percentage of people run anything else. However, I think that having a system that assumes that there will be other file systems makes it a lot more flexible. Have you ever wondered why it's so hard to get good EXT2/3 support windows. It's specifically because it was written from the point of view, that n
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Fnordulicious (85996)

          Actually, Apple isn't exactly moving from Old FS (HFS+) to New FS (UFS, née FFS) any time soon. HFS+ is basically required for the boot volume, and HFS+ has a number of features that don't exist in UFS (ACLs, file creation dates, extents, journaling, file type and creator codes, archive timestamps, etc.). That said, HFS+ certainly sucks for a number of reasons, but UFS is no replacement candidate. ZFS has a future with the Xserve and other server uses, but whether ZFS will ever be used on the Apple des

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly! They should just create a data structure and search algorithm with O(1) in all use cases.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Exactly! They should just create a data structure and search algorithm with O(1) in all use cases.

        Linux has that, it's called /dev/null
      • by pschmied (5648)

        Ignoring my grandmothers dying words advising me to not feed the trolls:

        \sarcasm{Yes. This is precisely what I'm advocating.}

        What part of "take one filesystem and make it good" warrants creating a strawman implying that I'm advocating for the total abolition of filesystems?

    • by fm6 (162816)

      Certainly the Linux community doesn't really need to burn energy supporting a half dozen filesystems.
      Or a hundred different distros. Yet they do exist.
    • I'd gladly stand up for a lack of choice on the filesystem front. Pick one, make sure it's absolutely tested, make sure it supports a nice range of features.

      Absolutely! I'm tired of having to pick different filesystems for flash and RAID-0/SCSI-320 volumes when their needs and abilities are obviously identical.

      • by pschmied (5648)

        We were clearly talking about general purpose filesystems here. Tell me again how AdvFS is any more applicable to flash than Ext3, NTFS, or JoeysBBQFS to the flash scenario you've outlined here?

        While you're setting up strawmen, you forgot to include iso9660, UDF, 12 dozen network-based filesystems, half a dozen SAN filesystems, etc. etc.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      I must admit I never ventured past the ext* systems myself. I'm sure there'd be some improvements but on the other hand my system was working just fine. I do see that when you're trying to build a Linux server for a specific purpose, like say a database server then it's not all the same though. Msnu file systems show many people care about Linux filesystem performance, I'd be more worried if noone gave a damn. As for the perfect file system, it isn't built yet. Even the ZFS of much praise have trouble doing

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Ant P. (974313)

      Integrating a filesystem into another OS is a decidedly non-trivial task unless you just want to read files.
      Write a FUSE driver. Problem nonexistent.

      As for "too much choice", you may prefer to solve every problem with a hammer but I prefer a toolbox.

  • But can it run Linu... oh... right.
  • I'm always happy to see a company GPL code, but I have to say that having used both, I think ext3 is considerably more solid than AdvFS...
  • Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:58PM (#23909233)

    Everyone has been looking at ZFS to provide a whole lot of this same feature set, but the CDDL license has been a significant stumbling block. Releasing AdvFS as GPL could actually put it in the running for real world adoption and use on a large scale. I think Sun already considered this a battle won and may now have to rethink their strategy. If they released Sun as GPL in the next month, I'd be willing to bet AdvFS would probably be largely ignored and become a historical footnote. If Sun waits and lets it gain traction (as they tend to do) it could be they will find themselves with another cool technology they sat on too long and which has been replaced y the OSS community.

  • I find filesystems and BIOSs intriguing. They are kinda like voodoo, in that you don't really see or configure them (to a certain extent). They do what they do and you don't think about them. However, they can (possibly) have more impact on performance that any tweaks you can do (kernel or application).

    I know that some people (read: sysadmins) definitely do think about their filesystem, but even then its usually only when you are installing a system or in the event something goes wrong.
  • Tru64 goodness (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JayMcB74 (1312899) on Monday June 23, 2008 @04:31PM (#23909701)
    I really hope everyone will join me in thanking HP for this and encourage them to release more of the Tru64 OS, HP has been on my $&!â list since they bought and buried this years ago. They are sitting on so much good IP that I really wish that they would only make printers and just the 4000+ series at that.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cparker15 (779546)

      I'm glad I expanded my threshold before I posted the comment I was originally going to post. HP just donated a whole bunch of their code to the community, and people are so ungrateful that they're actually complaining about it. Huh??!

      Thanks, HP! :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by uassholes (1179143)
      I used to be in DEC SW services. Some of their SW products were good, but the Alpha was outstanding. HP can go to hell and suck donkey ass for destroying it and other DEC products in favor of Fucktanium and their own horseshit.
  • Ok, I understand the reasons for moving from Ext2 to ext3.. but then all this effort to support a bunch of Me-too's journaled file systems each with some marginal improvements over the rest of a crowded field. It seems like a bunch of work for a minor payoff.... The problem that I see that isnt addresses in native linux file systems is small files. try and copy a folder with 50k files each sized from 1k to 10 k each 100 meg total.. so copying a tar file with this much information is an operation that c
    • by drspliff (652992)

      Well, ReiserFs handled this by tail packing, while traditionally you're limited to whole FS blocks with ReiserFS you can store multiple small files or the tails of files into a single block.

      It's a little bit of a problem though because the FS is now doing more to write files, but from a performance perspective is very good for read performance (stat & file content often stored in the same block). That's very good for creating tar archives of large directory structures quickly which solves half the probl

  • by Bonzoli (932939) on Monday June 23, 2008 @08:06PM (#23911725)
    I currently use Tru64 in production at least for another month. One of the issues with this encapsulation type FS process is it sucks. If I had to try and figure out how to merge two File systems by some vote of talking heads, this would be the result. It has some strong and good things it does well, but the way Tru64 merged it's file systems together, makes the final product a huge pain to administer and fix. Learn what you can from the code, and make something better. Do not try and port this crap to something else as is, you wont be happy.

    Why do you think HP bought again the newer Veritas File system and didn't use the already payed for version they picked up with Tru64?

    It has some good things in it. Pick them out carefully and learn from them. Then think about what is needed to administer your File systems in real life, and implement it.
  • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Monday June 23, 2008 @10:56PM (#23912675) Homepage

    But it doesn't go nearly far enough.

    HP needs to kill HP/UX, IBM needs to kill AIX, and anybody else with a proprietary UNIX needs to kill it, and donate the source code to Linux. Including Sun with Solaris.

    Had they done this ten years ago, Linux would be running the show now, instead of Microsoft.

    The big companies have utterly no need for a proprietary UNIX that does nothing but jack up their development costs. Donate the existing code to Linux, wait until what fits and makes Linux sufficiently enterprise-level is adopted, then adopt Linux as their unified platform. Then they can devote development expenses to differentiating themselves with system management software, which is the sort of software open source tends to lag in producing.

    By sitting on their asses, all they've done is give Microsoft an opening into the server market. Eventually the server market will be either dominated by Windows or shared equally with Linux, anyway. Nobody's going to care if the proprietary UNIXes go away as long as the necessary features from them are available in Linux.

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Working...