lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: why umsdos?
Date

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Wilcox <Matthew.Wilcox@genedata.com>
To: Anthony Barbachan <barbacha@Hinako.AMBusiness.com>; Matthew Wilcox
<Matthew.Wilcox@genedata.com>; linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
<linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Cc: humbubba@raptor.cqi.com <humbubba@raptor.cqi.com>
Date: Sunday, November 08, 1998 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: why umsdos?


>On Sun, Nov 08, 1998 at 03:31:21PM -0500, Anthony Barbachan wrote:
>> >I don't like umsdos personally. Have you considered using a file on the
>> >msdos filesystem with an ext2 filesystem on it instead? I have a
machine
>> >with its root filesystem mounted on /dev/loop0. A little playing with
>> >initrd makes this quite easy. This means you have no need for a untfs
>> >(and in my case, no need for a uadfs).
>
>> Ok let me see if I understand you correctly you want to replace UMSDOS,
>> which works rather transparently and well, with an ext2 filesystem image
on
>> a FAT system?
>
>Modulo the spin you just put on it, yes.
>
>> Quicky reasons against this:
>>
>> 1. Increases risk to wipeing out the Linux system exponentially as by
>> deletely one file accidently (the image file) on the DOS system would
wipe
>> out the Linux system.
>
>Use ATTRIB under DOS to deal with this problem. And of course, your system
>wouldn't be recoverable to the average newbie user (which is what his
system
>is designed for) if one were to delete (eg) C:\LINUX\LIB\LIBC.SO.
>

What about his data? And whatever attributes you set with the attrib
command can be easily overridden.

>> 2. No speed improvement, most likely there would be a speed decrease.
>> file system request -> UMSDOS -> FATFS -> drive
>> vs.
>> file system request -> EXT2 -> loop device driver -> FATFS ->
drive
>
>Show me the numbers, I'm not convinced.
>

Your adding another layer to the I/O flow and you expect a speed up???

>> 3. No gain in feature except perhaps the cluster space problem on large
>> drives (Not applicable if UMSDOS now works on FAT32 as I have hear)
>
>you then don't need UMSDOS. And you don't need to write UNTFS.
>

For the network I would definately need it, if I want access to a unix-like
file system. What if I needed to lock a file? I can't lock the entire
image if others are using it.

>> 4. Much wasted space as the image would be a set size (and probably not
at
>> 100% usage) while UMSDOS stores the files as files on the FAT filesystem
>> resulting in the free space on the drive being share amoung both systems.
>
>I don't think this is a problem if someone's evaluating Linux. If they
>want to do more than evaluate Linux then they should partition anyway.
>

UMSDOS isn't necesarily only being used by newbees. It can be an excellent
choice for a dual OS system. No need to reformat a hard drive (no need to
buy a resizing repartitioner either), easily share data betweem systems, one
can even use commercial disk repair tools (of which non that I knwo of
exists for linux yet), etc.

>--
>Matthew Wilcox <willy@bofh.ai>
>"I decry the current tendency to seek patents on algorithms. There are
>better ways to earn a living than to prevent other people from making use
of
>one's contributions to computer science." -- Donald E. Knuth, TAoCP vol 3
>



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.050 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site