Does anyone know what happened to support for installation on JFS drives in SuSE 9.3? We use only JFS here, so finding out that 9.3 does 1) not support creating JFS filesystems during install and 2) the kernel does not have boot-time support for JFS was a little depressing. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Per Jessen wrote:
Does anyone know what happened to support for installation on JFS drives in SuSE 9.3? We use only JFS here, so finding out that 9.3 does 1) not support creating JFS filesystems during install and 2) the kernel does not have boot-time support for JFS was a little depressing.
That seems awfully strange. I use almost exclusively JFS as well, and I do not recall having had this issue. I even do crazy stuff like LVM on top of software RAID with encrypted volumes, all using JFS as the filesystem, and haven't had a lick of trouble. -- Carpe diem - Seize the day. Carp in denim - There's a fish in my pants! Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@jamponi.net>
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Jon Nelson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Per Jessen wrote:
Does anyone know what happened to support for installation on JFS drives in SuSE 9.3? We use only JFS here, so finding out that 9.3 does 1) not support creating JFS filesystems during install and 2) the kernel does not have boot-time support for JFS was a little depressing.
That seems awfully strange. I use almost exclusively JFS as well, and I do not recall having had this issue. I even do crazy stuff like LVM on top of software RAID with encrypted volumes, all using JFS as the filesystem, and haven't had a lick of trouble.
Let me amend that - Gustavo.Dutra found that in the release notes, SuSE has discontinued partitioning support for jfs. What a shame! -- Carpe diem - Seize the day. Carp in denim - There's a fish in my pants! Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@jamponi.net>
Per Jessen wrote:
Does anyone know what happened to support for installation on JFS drives in SuSE 9.3? We use only JFS here, so finding out that 9.3 does 1) not support creating JFS filesystems during install and 2) the kernel does not have boot-time support for JFS was a little depressing.
I believe it was dropped for technical reasons, though I don't know what those reasons were.
James Knott wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Does anyone know what happened to support for installation on JFS drives in SuSE 9.3? We use only JFS here, so finding out that 9.3 does 1) not support creating JFS filesystems during install and 2) the kernel does not have boot-time support for JFS was a little depressing.
I believe it was dropped for technical reasons, though I don't know what those reasons were.
Had it been political or licensing reasons it would have slightly more acceptable, but if it's just a _technical_ reason ... especially when SuSE has had JFS support since 7.3. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/freetrial - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution. Sign up for your free 30-day trial now!
Per Jessen wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Does anyone know what happened to support for installation on JFS drives in SuSE 9.3? We use only JFS here, so finding out that 9.3 does 1) not support creating JFS filesystems during install and 2) the kernel does not have boot-time support for JFS was a little depressing. I believe it was dropped for technical reasons, though I don't know what
Per Jessen wrote: those reasons were.
Had it been political or licensing reasons it would have slightly more acceptable, but if it's just a _technical_ reason ... especially when SuSE has had JFS support since 7.3.
Or more correctly, if SuSE said what those reasons are, such as under certain circumstances, you'll lose all your data and cause your computer to revert back to a 4.77 MHz XT. ;-) I don't have a problem with it being pulled for technical reasons. It would just be nice to know what reasons.
James Knott wrote:
Or more correctly, if SuSE said what those reasons are, such as under certain circumstances, you'll lose all your data and cause your computer to revert back to a 4.77 MHz XT. ;-) I don't have a problem with it being pulled for technical reasons. It would just be nice to know what reasons.
Very well put :-) I guess I'm just at a loss when I try to imagine what sort of technical problems they could possibly have had?? What has changed so dramatically in 9.3 that a file-system that was supported in 9.2 couldn't be supported in 9.3? JFS certainly hasn't changed much - the most recent 2 releases were mostly bug-fixes. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/freetrial - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution. Sign up for your free 30-day trial now!
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 15:51 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Or more correctly, if SuSE said what those reasons are, such as under certain circumstances, you'll lose all your data and cause your computer to revert back to a 4.77 MHz XT. ;-) I don't have a problem with it being pulled for technical reasons. It would just be nice to know what reasons.
Very well put :-) I guess I'm just at a loss when I try to imagine what sort of technical problems they could possibly have had?? What has changed so dramatically in 9.3 that a file-system that was supported in 9.2 couldn't be supported in 9.3? JFS certainly hasn't changed much - the most recent 2 releases were mostly bug-fixes.
With JFS being contributed by IBM and the pending lawsuit from you know who against IBM perhaps SuSE is taking a more conservative approach. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
Ken Schneider wrote:
I guess I'm just at a loss when I try to imagine what sort of technical problems they could possibly have had?? What has changed so dramatically in 9.3 that a file-system that was supported in 9.2 couldn't be supported in 9.3? JFS certainly hasn't changed much - the most recent 2 releases were mostly bug-fixes.
With JFS being contributed by IBM and the pending lawsuit from you know who against IBM perhaps SuSE is taking a more conservative approach.
I would have no problem accepting that. Political and licensing problems tend to be a lot harder than simple technical problems. But according to SuSE it's a _technical_ problem. Also, they claim to have left the support in the kernel (mostly correct, the module is there), and only removed the partitioning support - which isn't quite true, as a vanilla SuSE 9.3 will _install_ on JFS, but it will not _boot_ from a JFS root partition. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/freetrial - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution. Sign up for your free 30-day trial now!
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Per Jessen wrote:
Ken Schneider wrote:
I guess I'm just at a loss when I try to imagine what sort of technical problems they could possibly have had?? What has changed so dramatically in 9.3 that a file-system that was supported in 9.2 couldn't be supported in 9.3? JFS certainly hasn't changed much - the most recent 2 releases were mostly bug-fixes.
With JFS being contributed by IBM and the pending lawsuit from you know who against IBM perhaps SuSE is taking a more conservative approach.
I would have no problem accepting that. Political and licensing problems tend to be a lot harder than simple technical problems. But according to SuSE it's a _technical_ problem.
Also, they claim to have left the support in the kernel (mostly correct, the module is there), and only removed the partitioning support - which isn't quite true, as a vanilla SuSE 9.3 will _install_ on JFS, but it will not _boot_ from a JFS root partition.
Aha! That explains why I didn't have trouble - for whatever reason, I always make /boot ext2 (not even ext3!). -- Carpe diem - Seize the day. Carp in denim - There's a fish in my pants! Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@jamponi.net>
Jon Nelson wrote:
Aha! That explains why I didn't have trouble - for whatever reason, I always make /boot ext2 (not even ext3!).
What about / ? I still use a smallish /boot partition with JFS - doesn't seem to be any problems there. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/freetrial - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution. Sign up for your free 30-day trial now!
Ken Schneider wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 15:51 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Or more correctly, if SuSE said what those reasons are, such as under certain circumstances, you'll lose all your data and cause your computer to revert back to a 4.77 MHz XT. ;-) I don't have a problem with it being pulled for technical reasons. It would just be nice to know what reasons. Very well put :-) I guess I'm just at a loss when I try to imagine what sort of technical problems they could possibly have had?? What has changed so dramatically in 9.3 that a file-system that was supported in 9.2 couldn't be supported in 9.3? JFS certainly hasn't changed much - the most recent 2 releases were mostly bug-fixes.
With JFS being contributed by IBM and the pending lawsuit from you know who against IBM perhaps SuSE is taking a more conservative approach.
I forgot about that. JFS was originally developed for OS/2 and then ported to AIX. Since AIX was developed under a Unix licence, JFS suddenly became a derivative work, that's now "owned" by SCO.
James Knott wrote:
I forgot about that. JFS was originally developed for OS/2 and then ported to AIX. Since AIX was developed under a Unix licence, JFS suddenly became a derivative work, that's now "owned" by SCO.
I don't see it being the reason for taking away support for creating JFS filesystems during installtion, but leaving everything else? Everything else works just fine with JFS except 1) creating JFS filesystems at install and 2) having a root JFS filesystems. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/freetrial - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution. Sign up for your free 30-day trial now!
Per Jessen wrote:
James Knott wrote:
I forgot about that. JFS was originally developed for OS/2 and then ported to AIX. Since AIX was developed under a Unix licence, JFS suddenly became a derivative work, that's now "owned" by SCO.
I don't see it being the reason for taking away support for creating JFS filesystems during installtion, but leaving everything else? Everything else works just fine with JFS except 1) creating JFS filesystems at install and 2) having a root JFS filesystems.
Perhaps for the benefit of those who had previously used JFS and are now upgrading to 9.3? As I mentioned earlier, I only know they claimed technical reasons. I have no information, beyond that. You'll have to ask someone at SuSE.
participants (4)
-
James Knott -
Jon Nelson -
Ken Schneider -
Per Jessen