5 ms·
They made their FFS 64-bit. That’s what you get. And FFS is THE standard. In short no. Also they removed softupdates, code was old and slow and was holding bac
by ByQuyzzy 2y ago
They made their FFS 64-bit. That’s what you get. And FFS is THE standard.
In short no. Also they removed softupdates, code was old and slow and was holding back the quest to unlock.
- znpy 2y ago> And FFS is THE standard What's that supposed to mean? ed is the standard text editor, yet we don't actually expect anyone to use it (let alone know it...)
- ByQuyzzy 2y agoIt means no meme filesystems will be tolerated. There are tons of operating systems out there if you don’t like ffs.
- jabl 2y ago> They made their FFS 64-bit. What does this mean? 64-bit inode numbers? 64-bit timestamps? Something else? > Also they removed softupdates, Shame in a way, I remember reading McKusick's paper and being impressed. But I guess it's the antithesis of batching, which turned out to be more important for performance than avoiding the extra I/O due to journalling. Also the implementation was AFAIU fearsomely subtle and tricky.
- ByQuyzzy 2y agoRead the manual page, I’m not going to type it all in here.
- volkadav 2y agohttps://unixgeeks.net/posts/2022/10/check-for-openbsd-ffs-filesystems-version/ https://unixgeeks.net/posts/2022/10/check-for-openbsd-ffs-fi... may be helpful. tl;dr - timestamps and blocknumbers are 64b in FFS2, intro'd in 4.2 and made the default (more or less) in 6.7