Subject: Re: as long as we're hitting FFS...
To: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/23/1999 17:00:59
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On 23 Mar 1999, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > As long as we're going to hit the inode format, and creating a new
> > magic number, some things I'd like fixed from the wish list:
> > 4) GC old goo like the old uid/gid support.
> Then we won't be able to mount Ultrix partitions. Not a big deal to me,
> but could be to other port-pmax folks.
One thing I'd like to make clear is that the current proposal was for
changes to sys/ufs/ffs, not for the creation of sys/ufs/liffs. As such, we
can't g/c too much old stuff for the new fs as the same source feeds both
the small and large inode fs's. Admittedly we could use tests for gunk we
didn't support, but couldn't we do the same thing with versioning the fs?
I mean we could do all that on a small inode system.
Sure the magic number is different, but that's because the on-disk inodes
take up twice the space (you get half as many to a disk block). But our
intent was that it was still ffs.