Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:26:15 +0100 From: roberto@keltia.freenix.fr (Ollivier Robert) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ufs is too slow? Message-ID: <Mutt.19961111192615.roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> In-Reply-To: <199611111704.MAA12463@fnur.3skel.com>; from Dan Janowski on Nov 11, 1996 12:04:35 -0500 References: <199611111704.MAA12463@fnur.3skel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Dan Janowski: > At one point I had inquired about lfs (log file system), in > part because of my experience with xfs (SGI's). Although lfs > is not xfs, they are both better performers than ufs/ffs (which Xfs is pretty fragile from what I've heard. > are both REALLY old, I think ufs dates from the 50's and ffs > from the 70's). They appeared in 1983 in a paper that you'll find in /usr/src/share/doc/papers/smm/05.fastfs. > Margo Seltzer, who was a principle for lfs. The apparent > primary reason why lfs does not run here is that lfs does some > wierd stuff with the ATT buffer code that is missing in > 4.4-lite. I was not able to get a synopsis of what or how to > get around it, but it didn't sound like lfs was broken, it's > just missing some wheels. Not exactly. It is broken in FreeBSD since the VM/Buffer cache merge and it lacks some features like fsck. John Dyson said he was working on it and hoped to have it fixed for 2.2. Now maybe 3.0. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- The daemon is FREE! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 3.0-CURRENT #28: Sun Nov 10 13:37:41 MET 1996
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19961111192615.roberto>