On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 23:08, David Laight wrote:
> > > In my opinion the amount of progression justifies a major version bump.
> > > A short summary:
> > > 
> > > * native threads
> > > * kqueue
> > > * systrace
> > > * UFSv2
> > 
> > Isn't saying we support UFSv2 mostly untrue at this point? We don't support
> > ACLs or any of the stuff FreeBSD's UFS2 has, as far as I've read. From what
> > I've read, our UFS2 support consists of being able to have much bigger
> > partitions, and that's it. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention...
> 
> No, you've not been paying attention! Since a netbsd filesystem has to
> be described by a netbsd disklabel, and the disklabel only has 32 bits
> for the number of sectors, ufs2/ffsv2 doesn't even allow you much
> bigger partitions.
> 
> It does double the size of the inodes though.....
> 
> ffsv2 is rather pointless since it doesn't allow more than one fs block
> for the per cylinder group bitmaps - which is a big restriction for
> even moderate sized filesystems.
> 
> 	David

If it's so bad, then why is it being adopted at all?