Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:27:32 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GSoC proposition: multiplatform UFS2 driver Message-ID: <20140314152732.0f6fdb02@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <CAA3ZYrCPJ1AydSS9n4dDBMFjHh5Ug6WDvTzncTtTw4eYrmcywg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAA3ZYrCPJ1AydSS9n4dDBMFjHh5Ug6WDvTzncTtTw4eYrmcywg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:22:10 -0800 Dieter BSD wrote: > Julio writes, > > That being said, I do not like the idea of using NetBSD's UFS2 > > code. It lacks Soft-Updates, which I consider to make FreeBSD UFS2 > > second only to ZFS in desirability. > > FFS has been in production use for decades. ZFS is still wet behind > the ears. Older versions of NetBSD have soft updates, and they work > fine for me. I believe that NetBSD 6.0 is the first release without > soft updates. They claimed that soft updates was "too difficult" to > maintain. I find that soft updates are *essential* for data > integrity (I don't know *why*, I'm not a FFS guru). NetBSD didn't simply drop soft-updates, they replaced it with journalling, which is the approach used by practically all modern filesystems. A number of people on the questions list have said that they find UFS+SU to be considerably less robust than the journalled filesystems of other OS's.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140314152732.0f6fdb02>