Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:39:37 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: GSoC proposition: multiplatform UFS2 driver Message-ID: <1394811577.1149.543.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140314152732.0f6fdb02@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <CAA3ZYrCPJ1AydSS9n4dDBMFjHh5Ug6WDvTzncTtTw4eYrmcywg@mail.gmail.com> <20140314152732.0f6fdb02@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 15:27 +0000, RW wrote: > 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. What I've seen claimed is that UFS+SUJ is less robust. That's a very different thing than UFS+SU. Journaling was nailed onto the side of UFS +SU as an afterthought, and it shows. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1394811577.1149.543.camel>