From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Spam Subject: Re: reiser4 for windows Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 02:40:10 +0100 Message-ID: <965622991.20041208024010@tnonline.net> References: <20041207060730.GA1344@zg.cz> <1102408162.12503.25.camel@localhost> Reply-To: Spam Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <1102408162.12503.25.camel@localhost> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Reiserfs Mailinglist > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 22:07 -0800, Jiri Klouda wrote: >> > Also, is it a given that reiser4 for windows would work without help >> > from MS? I've just never seen a third-party filesystem driver for >> > windows. You'd think that at least one other filesystem, one of the >> > Linux/BSD/etc ones, would have done this, if it was feasable. Aren't there? Isn't there various compression systems, not to mention PGP disk? Maybe it is not the same thing... >>=20 >> You might be onto something here. I am pretty sure my company would >> pay quite a lot for a working, fast and elegant implementation of=20 >> symbolic links on windows. Either as a new filesystem or as an addition >> onto ntfs. We currently use one such addition and not very usable and >> uses a catalog of symlinks that can easily get corrupted. Yes, NTFS only has hard links, not symlinks =3D(. I have myself been wanting to use symlinks a lot. >>=20 >> Having reiser4 on Windows or even ext2, would be a huge thing. > a real implementation of ext2 for windows exists.. i had it once in > vmware.. but i cant remember the name >>=20 >> > All this leaves me with the distinct impression that it'd be cheaper to >> > buy some gigabit ethernet (or fibre) and a Linux CIFS/Samba fileserver >> > using reiser4. Steam and others refuse to install on network drives, >> > Windows probably will not boot off a network drive, but I imagine that >> > fixing these would be easier than porting a filesystem. Will disk access over LAN really be anything close to as fast as a real local harddisk, especially if you have to run over Samba? Oh, just noticed you said this in the next paragraph =3D). Windows can be run from a network drive. Steam, on the other hand prevents network drives for the same reason it has CD checks. It is all about preventing users from running copies. =20 >>=20 >> Unfortunatelly even with very fast ethernet connections and network >> appliance with CIFS access, we still don't get the performance of a >> local filesystem. Plus, you don't want to really give write access=20 >> over network, that slows down anything when you get into hundreds of >> clients. And we really cannot pay for so many network applicances to >> make this scalable proposition. >>=20 >> I wish we could just drop Windows as a platform, but as long as there >> are customers, there will be need to support them as well... :( It is easy to say these things. But really, for lots of applications and uses there is only MacOSX that can compete. Linux has yet a far way to go when it comes to normal desktop and workstation usage. Hardcore and relatively skillful users have no problems with Linux as a desktop environment, but the "gray mass" does. KDE and Gnome are improving fast though =3D). Anyway, that is another discussion not really for this forum. ~S >>=20 >> -Jiri >>=20 =B4 --=20