From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (IDENT:qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA27587 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:08:37 -0700 Received: (from ncc@localhost) by milquetoast.cs.mcgill.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14833 for parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:09:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:09:49 -0500 From: Nick Cabatoff To: parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] HFS linux implementation Message-ID: <20000310010949.A14656@cs.mcgill.ca> References: <20000309193535.C3423@cs.mcgill.ca> <200003100137.RAA09015@milano.cup.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Grant Grundler's message [Re: [parisc-linux] HFS linux implementation] as of Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 05:37:32PM -0800 List-ID: On Mar 09, Grant Grundler wrote: > Nick Cabatoff wrote: > > (I sent this to Alex deVries and didn't get a response, so I figured I'd > > give this list a try instead.) > > Poor Alex is pretty busy right now... That's what I gathered. In any event the list was a better target for my question I think. > concluded it was do-able. And you might check if other open > source parisc ports have already done it (eg OpenBSD or mklinux). I didn't know there were any *BSD ports; I'm pretty sure mklinux didn't get that far, based on what I looked at last year. That's a good thought though, thanks. I'll see what I can find. > As a side note, don't confused HP's HFS with Apple's. > I'm not sure of what to call HP's since Apple HFS support was first. > Perhaps the other ports have set precedence for this. Actually, it looks like just stock UFS with ACL support, as far as I can see. Even that's kind of optional; many sites don't use ACLs at all (hell, dump/restore don't know about them), and it looks like a read-only implementation that just ignored them would work fine. I think that would be almost too easy given the existing linux UFS module though, so once that much is working I'll probably do a writeable version that preserves ACLs, even if it doesn't allow you to work with them. I think it also may be compatible with OSF/1's UFS (based on an include-file comment), so this implementation would kill two birds with one stone. > > - if you think it's worth the effort, given that I expect HP-UX > > systems are using LVM now and I don't feel up to the task of trying > > to handle that > > Yes. Most older workstations use HFS on wholedisk. HFS can be used on > disks > 4GB without LVM. I avoid LVM whenever I can. It's easier to > physically move disks from one host to another without LVM. I only > use LVM when the boot file system is on a disk > 2GB. Ah, glad to see I was overgeneralizing from my own experience. I've had some bad luck with LVM on root disks myself, but I'm philosophically opposed to having single-filesystem machines (i.e., I want seperate /var and /tmp directories), so I stick with it. I'm kind of mystified why HP would've waited for LVM to allow multiple filesystems on a single disk; what's so bad about partition tables?