Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:17:38 -0400 From: Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>, RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: GSoC proposition: multiplatform UFS2 driver Message-ID: <1626A8BF-3875-4287-9F85-51F387986736@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1394811577.1149.543.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <CAA3ZYrCPJ1AydSS9n4dDBMFjHh5Ug6WDvTzncTtTw4eYrmcywg@mail.gmail.com> <20140314152732.0f6fdb02@gumby.homeunix.com> <1394811577.1149.543.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 15:27 +0000, RW wrote: >> 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. This makes sense to me and I am more willing to believe it than the previous claim. I have yet to see a report of a problem involving soft updates that could not have been caused by hardware doing something UFS2 SU was not designed to handle, such as a misdirected write. Sadly, such reports lack the detail needed to distinguish between filesystem bugs and hardware errors. Placing UFS2 SU on a ZFS zvol would prevent such failure modes from happening.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1626A8BF-3875-4287-9F85-51F387986736>