Great, the most important part of my system has to be on some other FS type because otherwise I can't boot.

I would prefer to have my boot loader, kernel, and modules live on the safest FS available to me. If that's not XFS, why use it? If it is XFS, then why use something else, except for the license making me?

Resizing the boot partition to add more modules and/or kernel generations at a later date would be right out, after laying everything out.

I'm not saying that that arrangement can't be made to work from an installation perspective, just that it's a ridiculous number of hoops to force someone through on the pretense of a free license.

I don't see the people leaping forward to volunteer their effort under those terms. I've stated my terms. I've made suggestions on how they can protect what they want to protect, and pointed out that they don't have that level of protection now.

I also see the GFS people bending over backward to accomodate us, and don't see significant benefit to XFS compared to GFS, and particularly with regard to the XFS code for Linux being incapable of storage area clustering, due to some code that SGI only has on their boxes.

I've already thrown 20k of patches at the GFS people as a show of good faith; if they follow through, I fully expect that a port can happen very quickly. I might even do a Windows port, just to be annoying, since I fully understand the IFSMgr code, and have the necessary tools and SDK to do the work.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message