HAMMER update 06-Feb-2008

Bill Hacker wbh at conducive.org
Fri Feb 8 21:13:39 PST 2008

Matthew Dillon wrote:
:There's always the option of releasing a 1.12 version now (it's not like
:there haven't been enough changes to justify a new release). The 2.0 release
:is likely to get a lot of downloads, so I think shipping it with a pre-alpha
:hammer is a waste of an opportunity to attract more people. Not to mention
:that it's hard to put a time bound on this kind of development. So, let's
:just admit that and ship 2.0 as soon as Matt declares it ready for beta
:testing, regardless of what time of year it is. A real beta-state hammer
:justifies a 2.0 release on its own IMHO. Also, this will let Matt work on
:hammer without any tight deadlines.
    Yes, and I've agonized over this very possibility.  Maybe the thing
    to do is to poll the people on kernel at .  HAMMER won't be ready for
    sure (things take however long they take), but the hardest part of it
    is working and stable and I'm just down to garbage collection and
    crash recovery.  Crazily enough, that is what all the major surgery
    yesterday, and the continuing work, is about.
    So what do people think?  Should this month's release be 1.12 or 2.0 ?

					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon at backplane.com>

1.2X wherein HAMMER fs is 'experimental'

- With an allowance for 1.3X and HAMMER fs 'stable' (as in does not 
break, crash the OS, or lose data) if not yet fast. Let us not have a 
parallel to Reiserfs troubles.

I'd like to see 2.0 reserved for 'ready for prime time'. i.e. industrial 
strength stability if not (yet/ever) a speed champ on fs or SMP issues.

JM2CW - but we are having to convert servers from <another>BSD to <a 
different>BSD 'coz - for servers - performance can be addressed with 
hardware. Stability only with hours of our lives. And we grow weary of 
chasing fragile patches.


More information about the Kernel mailing list