From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 20 10:11:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088D116A41F for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:11:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF0643D45 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:11:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [82.41.37.55] ([82.41.37.55]) by smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:12:05 +0100 Message-ID: <42DE2347.4040203@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:11:19 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zev Thompson References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2005 10:12:05.0241 (UTC) FILETIME=[7AB38E90:01C58D13] Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Journaling vs. Softupdates X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:11:23 -0000 Zev Thompson wrote: > Apparently one of the Google Summer of Code projects is to add > journaling to UFS. When it already has softupdates, why? I've seen > benchmarks that seem to indicate that softupdates performs as well or > better in most cases, though I have nothing on hand to substantiate > that. I thought the only real disadvantages of softupdates were: > > - harder to code and implement (though this is already done, so should > not be an issue) > - sometimes deleting files does not free space right away > > Possibility of data loss, I'm guessing, is the same with either. > Filesystem corruption is similarly very unlikely. > > So why the change? Thanks in advance for any answers. Large filesystems without journaling take too long to fsck. There's plenty of messages about this out there, otherwise I wouldn't have know the answer :-) --Alex