Quoting emre@asper.org (emre@asper.org):
> 
> > So do the words "SGI is actively working on it" inspire me?
> > Not overwhelmingly. These are the folks who came out with a $5000
> > Windows workstation.  It was better than the $2000 ones from every
> > vendor in the world, so they did manage to sell 4 or 5 of them :)
> > Today they love Linux.
> 
> Well, of course SGI does some very stupid/silly things, but they're just
> trying to stay alive in this business.  The reason why I mentioned xfs is
> because of the fact that SGI actually ported 100% of xfs's features to
> linux.  So the XFS that's running on linux right now is the same one
> running in IRIX.

Well, it's more than that they don't seem to be doing it very well.
And in a climate where HP/Compaq own DEC, that's risky.  SGI has
offered us some important things.  They have excellent CCNuma stuff.
Wonderful ways to partition machines into bits.  Craylink is awesome.
XFS is just another file system.

> > I think IBM, who can tank for decades longer than SGI can tank, will
> > back JFS longer and better (assuming SCO doesn't end up owning them ;).
> Even though that's probably true, the problem I have with JFS is that
> IBM's open source port actually comes from OS/2 rather than AIX.
So?

> I don't quite understand that; I thought AIX's JFS version would be more
> appropriate for this kind of stuff.
And you problem with the tool is....

> I heard UFS2 will eventually be in NetBSD.  Is UFS2 a 'journaling' file
> system?
Read up on ufs at http://www.mckusick.com/

This is a FAQ, almost.

Me?  If i'm gonna use journalled file systems, I want ones where
I can put the journal on another spindle.  LIke an NVRAM card.

I like softupdates.  I like UFS2.  I like working on a snapshot while
fsck runs.

I'm not jumping on the trend of linux and 8 file systems.
ext2fs was much faster than ffs.  Oh, it was async.  That's why.
"faster unless you want data integrity"


Bottom line: XFS ain't coming to BSD unless someone (you?) does it.