Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:17:38 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Test this! Patch to make newfs(8) use libufs. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0301231507540.73010-100000@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20030123142924.A61481@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> [ Data: 2003-01-23 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: Test this! Patch to make newfs(8) use libufs. ] > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > Thanks to Ruslan's reminder that tunefs now uses libufs and tunefs is > > > one of the crunched programs, I realised that I really needed to make > > > newfs(8) use libufs. To show off that it *can* help us reduce space, > > > a good bit in some cases. > > > > Good to see this. Does libufs do an fsync() in bwrite() or do you need to > > do that manually in place of the previous calls to wtfsflush()? > > It doesn't. Do you think it should? I'd rather do that than litter the > newfs code. Not needed. On second look, I see you removed the wc[] caching and fall back to just write(). (BTW, what's the performance difference with your patch?) If newfs doesn't complete successfully due to a system crash, it doesn't matter if data written was flushed to disk, just run it again. -Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0301231507540.73010-100000>