gmane.comp.file-systems.tux3

Progress

Shentino — 2011-03-05T03:12:34

Just curious if there's been much in the line of news or progress on Tux3.
_______________________________________________
Tux3 mailing list
Tux3< at >tux3.org
http://mailman.tux3.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tux3

Tux 3 and BKL pushdown ...

Lars Segerlund — 2010-09-08T13:11:03

 Hi,

 In Linux 2.6.36 there has been a push down of the BKL inte VFS and
similar systems in ordeer to get rid of it, (finally ).
 I was thinking about having a look at the tux3 driver, in order to
try to 'upgrade' it to the latest kernel.

 Is developement dead or just stalled ? Since the mailing list
certainly have been dead for a while !

 Also can tux3 be built as a kernel module for a running/existing
kernel binary ? It should be reasonable right ? There should be
nothing to change in the kernel outside the module ?

 / regards, Lars Segerlund.

new patch for 2.6.34

Mario Fetka (geos_one — 2010-06-27T09:38:12

Hallo,

This is a request to update the patches to the newest kernel.
the old 2.6.29 patch won't compile with the newest incarnation if the kernel

thx in av
Mario

Anything that needs to be done ?

Lars Segerlund — 2010-01-12T11:57:09

 Tux 3 developement seems to have been on ice, is there anything that
could be done to get it going again ?

 If one was to start looking at some part whats most important ?
tolls/kernel integration/fs itself ?

 / regards, Lars Segerlund.

Issue:: Mounting TUX3 onto Linux machine

Balkrishnan V — 2009-11-30T19:58:37

_______________________________________________
Tux3 mailing list
Tux3< at >tux3.org
http://mailman.tux3.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tux3

help...

nandan yen — 2009-11-16T17:18:45

_______________________________________________
Tux3 mailing list
Tux3< at >tux3.org
http://mailman.tux3.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tux3

Grasping Tux3 concepts as an FS newbie readingrecommendations

Kadianakis George — 2009-10-14T23:29:23

Greetings,

I have zero knowledge as far as filesystems are concerned but I'm
interested in learning what Tux3 is and how it works.
I started digging into the Tux3 mailing list but, truth is, that I
couldn't follow most of the threads.
I also tried reading related articles like:
http://lwn.net/Articles/288896/
http://tux3.org/shapor-tux3/doc/design.html
but I didn't get far either.

Apart from basic and unrelated stuff (like how B-trees work, etc.),
can you propose me some basic reading on filesystem design so that I
can, at least, follow some basic discussion on the mailing list and
start checking out the code?

As a matter of fact, I think that publishing such a list on the
tux3.org would motivate many interested developers on 'joining' the
project.


Thanks :)

Fix recent "tux3 mkfs" broken, and bugfixes

OGAWA Hirofumi — 2009-08-15T22:21:00

Hi,

Those patches fixes the recent broken things by atomic commit.  I hope
this patchset fixes all of those.

    - add tux_new_logmap() to create proper logmap (please review and check)
    - create ->logmap for some places
    - use defer btree root allocation for itable (with FIXME)

And also this cleans inode stuff up, and as usual, is including various
small bugfixes.

static-http://userweb.kernel.org/~hirofumi/tux3/

Please review, and pull if ok.

Thanks.

Re: Current Activities?

OGAWA Hirofumi — 2009-08-10T14:19:05


About sponsorship, I guess Daniel just worried about me. But, it's not
argument on lkml. So, let's stop argument about sponsorship.

Thanks.

Re: Current Activities?

Daniel Phillips — 2009-08-08T23:47:21

Hi Ingo,

We were already sorta-kinda invited to merge, as I read it, having received advice to merge early while the code base remains small
instead of adding more features and risking premature bloat.  I seem to
recall there was a dissenter at that time on the basis of lack of
atomic commit, and we chose to follow the latter advice instead of the
former, arguably a mistake.


With 20-20 hindsight, we should have gone for a merge immediately after
the SCALE 7X demo, at which time Tux3 was reliably but without
atomic commit.  Instead, we decided to heed those asking for atomic
commit before merge.  This turned out to be a bad idea, because my
available time soon became severely constrained.  Work on atomic commit
has progressed over the last few months, but slowly.  If we had merged
back in February this work would have progressed faster and been done
by now.  As it is, we will probably forge on with the atomic commit work
rather than changing course and looking for a merge right away, because
there has bee