Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 02:42:05 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: jonathan michaels <jon@caamora.com.au> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD - A User's Point of View Message-ID: <199901241042.CAA17862@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:25:33 %2B1100." <19990124212533.B17658@caamora.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Actually, prior to softupdates, FreeBSD's filesystem performance wasn't >> very good compared to ext2fs for the very reason that ext2fs is "fast and >> loose" by defering metadata writes. This has the downside of making ext2fs >> filesystem integrity unreliable in the face of a system crash or power >> failure. FFS does not have this problem, but is much slower as a result. > >ok to laod gun, just please don't shoot just yet. > >is this softupdates teh same as a journaling filesystem, if not is freebsd >going to evolve such a creature ? > >what would teh arguments be one way ot the other, please. Softupdates is a thing that Kirk McKusick developed for FFS, based on work by Greg Ganger, that manages a sophisticated set of metadata dependencies such that metadata writes can be defered without danger of filesystem corruption if the system should crash or lose power. It's sort of a new and improved FFS and is not related to journaling/log-structured filesystems. FFS with softupdates is believed to be at least as fast as LFS without any of the downside of LFS (such as the need to do a periodic cleanup pass). -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901241042.CAA17862>