[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: [HEADS-UP] growfs port for ffs2 and ffs1
On Fri Oct 29 2010 at 07:47:08 +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote:
> >> Existence of resize_ffs which was never included to build and can't resize
> >> ffs2 file system can't be considered as issue.
> > I don't think it's correct to simply declare that others' objections
> > "can't be considered as issue". Resize_ffs is in our tree, it works, and it
> > can shrink filesystems, which the code you propose to commit cannot! I
> > do not think something that duplicates most of its functionality, adds one
> > new feature (support for ffs2) but omits another (shrinking filesystems)
> > should be committed.
> about what we are talking about 2 thousand lines? growfs works for users,
> resize_ffs doesn't even build by default. How users are supposed to use it ??
> In your logic if user want's to grow lvm file system he should download
> sources, make mechnical chnages to make it work with ffs2, build resize_ffs
> and resize it.
Is there any particular reason you chose to work on growfs instead
of resize_ffs? The TODO list for resize_ffs seems to consist mostly
of trivial tasks (including "put it into release lists/etc. and
src/sbin/Makefile"). The only bigger one is UFS2 support, which naiively
guessing is a lot less work than adding shrinking to growfs.
I have not evaluated resize_ffs myself, but from what I read on this
list it works and is in use.
Thanks for working on this, but please do not commit anything until the
discussion has been concluded.
Has anyone used the shriking feature of resize_ffs? Does that work?
I'd imagine shrinking to be an important feature for non-enterprise
Main Index |
Thread Index |