Messages in this thread | | | From | "Anthony Barbachan" <> | Subject | Re: why umsdos? | Date | Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:13:14 -0500 |
| |
-----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/
| |