Please excuse any ignorance on my part I confess I'm not much of an expert on Haiku (I was a bit too young for BeOS the first time) but isn't part of what makes Haiku/BeOS what it is, the file system? I love being able to save a query as a desktop folder, does that power not come from the file system supporting attributes and such? Wouldn't transitioning to ZFS either a) loose some of that or b) require a LOT of non-mainline ZFS work to allow for feature comparison? Assume I know very little on this subject, though would genuinely appreciate being corrected if wrong, does ZFS supports all this? Neil Munro On 20 September 2013 16:38, John Scipione <jscipione@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Neil Munro <neilmunro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Speaking as a lurker, occasionally murmuring at various things, I'd > rather > >> see the effort put into package management, multi-user support, Web > Positive > >> work, and R1, you know, the basics done, before then by all means > support as > >> many file systems as you like. > > > > I think most of the Haiku contributors who actually want to use Haiku > > as their main OS would completely agree with you, so don't worry. > > There was a GSoC 2011 project to port ZFS to Haiku. Anybody who is > interested in openzfs should probably look at it. > https://www.haiku-os.org/blog/generalmaximus > > > Though I think what will make sense for Haiku in the future when it > > comes to file systems is making BFS2, and borrowing the good ideas > > from other modern file systems, while still keeping the spirit of BeOS > > and Haiku that BFS represents. > > Well... maybe. > > There are surely a few annoyances and missing features (e.g. hard link > support) in the current BFS code that we'd like to correct in R2 > making a BFS2 for that release but I wouldn't expect it to be a major > departure from where we're at now. It's probably not worth it, and not > advisable, to try and bolt ZFS's feature set onto BFS either. > > A ZFS port is a probably a better way to go long term. From what I > understand from the FreeBSD port, adding ZFS filesystem support would > not be like adding another file system such as NTFS or FAT, it is > going to require a lot of infrastructure to be built to do error > reporting and recovery. It would almost certainly have to be something > that was agreed on and would need to draw on the support of the > existing developers to be done properly. > > As far as priorities go, this is definitely an R2 feature, possibly R3 > even, and certainly after improvements to the package management and > Web Positive from the perspective of Haiku, Inc. but, like was already > said, if somebody wants to work on this there is nothing to stop them, > and we wouldn't turn down working code. > >