Hi all, While I am mostly an ordinary user running Linux on my own machines at home, I must say that I have been a happy user of JFS from quite early on on all my Linux installations, for which I use the Debian distro. I am also using it on external HDDs and SSDs. In the past I have also been administrator for a few workgroup servers at my university for about 10 years and there we have transitioned from EXT2 and EXT3 to JFS on LVM at some point. Only recently I have started using BTRFS because of its additional features on my newest PC. However, I would not make that transition on older PCs with less resources. And it is some hassle to convert all existing filesystems to something else. I cannot provide hard facts like performance or so for the decision to use JFS. My first contact with journaling file systems had been on a few AIX (3.x/4.x) machines and later on with JFS on OS/2. So having started off based on the code of JFS for OS/2 certainly contributed to the initial level of trust when giving JFS on Linux a try versus EXT4 and it didn't let me down. >From my perspective it would be sad seeing it removed while other much older filesystems (or other features) are retained. But I also know that in the end it depends on the capability, availability and willingness of developers to maintain it. And, frankly speaking, I really do not know how much effort it is to keep the code compatible to new kernel versions. So this is my vote against orphaning JFS. I still think it is a good filesystem and certainly useful on systems with less resources where one would probably not use BTRFS, ZFS or so. But whatever the final decision will be, I would like to thank you all for contributing to JFS and keeping it running over the past >20 years. Best regards Stefan On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 05:09:10AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jan 13, 2023, at 08:15, Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 1/13/23 7:08AM, Harald Arnesen wrote: > >> Christoph Hellwig [13/01/2023 06.42]: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> A while ago we've deprecated reiserfs and scheduled it for removal. > >>> Looking into the hairy metapage code in JFS I wonder if we should do > >>> the same. While JFS isn't anywhere as complicated as reiserfs, it's > >>> also way less used and never made it to be the default file system > >>> in any major distribution. It's also looking pretty horrible in > >>> xfstests, and with all the ongoing folio work and hopeful eventual > >>> phaseout of buffer head based I/O path it's going to be a bit of a drag. > >>> (Which also can be said for many other file system, most of them being > >>> a bit simpler, though). > >> The Norwegian ISP/TV provider used to have IPTV-boxes which had JFS on the hard disk that was used to record TV programmes. > >> However, I don't think these boxes are used anymore. > > > > I know at one time it was one of the recommended filesystems for MythTV. I don't know of any other major users of JFS. I don't know if there is anyone familiar with the MythTV community that could weigh in. > > > > Obviously, I haven't put much effort into JFS in a long time and I would not miss it if it were to be removed. > > I've used MythTV for many years but haven't seen any particular recommendations for JFS there. Mainly ext4 and XFS are the common filesystems to follow the main distros (Ubuntu in particular). > > Cheers, Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > Jfs-discussion mailing list > Jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
