Post by David Chmelik
Are there any basic/simple tutorials/HOWTOs that might help setup
shared ZFS partition for FreeBSD & Slackware (current verisons of
[...] Do you mean concurrent access, like a clustered file system?
Don't know what that is. Not concurrent.
Or simply a single block device / file system that each can access when
booted one at a time?
[...] To whit, what do you want to do? What is your use case? (Please
describe independent of any possible solution.)
My own (single-user) PC/workstation dual-boot, as programmer/scientist
also doing more 'user' things: access my user-type data (/home,) that
mostly/all doesn't affect running operating system (OS) distribution
(distro) or graphical user interface (GUI, at least not pure command-
line, which I boot to)... in case might affect GUI (as for command-line:
already configured shells separately or to work fine... isn't a big
deal, as can boot recovery discs or universal serial bus, USB, flash
drives) I have backups and eventually would mainly/only use GUI only on
one OS; other only to learn/program/develop in (command-line only)
regularly/occasionally. Eventually I'd mainly use one (leaning to *BSD
which I started with in college and only switched for drivers 15+ years
ago for hardware I no longer use) then later maybe run other in Xen or
setup (not for security) like QubesOS (lets you run programs in emulator/
virtual-machine (emu/VM) main (host) OS' X/etc. from GUI of OS installed
(guest) inside main, without being inset in emu/VM window... just X
window, not requiring press to select in & out)... sadly that didn't
become popular at all for other distros, because apparently not so many
people want to do many things from various OSes right in one as if same
Of course, I'm not going to run QubesOS for that, as any GNU/Linux newer
than Slackware has problems for me: GUI-boot (sometimes with critical
bugs when altered to boot command-line,) systemd, dependency Hell,
configuration of (sort of as sometimes said) 'giving the user more rope
than they need to hang themselves,' etc., i.e., no longer strictly Unix[-
like] (more inspired by Apple/Windows.)
I think I've read that FreeBSD now uses ZFS on Linux as it's source of
ZFS. (This may be because FreeBSD ZFS efforts were pushed back into ZFS
on Linux and joint community development is happening there now.)
I know they plan to but apparently don't seem to yet. It might make
[...] >> [...] > [...]
I would bet that both FreeBSD and Linux both support FAT-12 / FAT-16 /
FAT-32. ;-) But perhaps they won't do what you want.
This isn't 1990; I mentioned journalling...!
I'd be somewhat surprised if FreeBSD can't read and write to NTFS. As
such, I expect that to be another option.
I wouldn't say so; obvious? Different file-name characters (also causing
critical shell problems; ) no user/permission information (so probably
also harder to do backups & restores right,) maybe poor/no journalling,
etc. It'd be an absolute, horrible, unusable mess!
[...] >> [...] > [...]
Maybe I used a few other default ZFS features (other than excluding
compression, because I want to be able to directly look into fs, and
excluding snapshots: space issue) but don't recall. Every similar fs
either starts using, the other team(s) mostly doesn't seem enthusiastic
about. In the past, *BSD had XFS, which apparently only was to attract
GNU/Linux users then remove XFS; *BSD doesn't want BTRFS either; the
Linux kernel is probably stuck on old versions of UFS/FFS still even read-
only (safely... same with Unix and EXT*)... I don't know about
alternatives or any new fs. Just last time, after some advice, it was
concluded ZFS was only option (should've been obvious.) I wonder if any
fs are part of POSIX standard or are either/all team(s) just don't want
to adhere to it as much as I thought...