From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Nov 12 01:21:06 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA05531
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 01:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA05526
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 01:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.2/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA07360; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 01:20:35 -0800 (PST)
To: Dan Janowski <danj@3skel.com>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr
Subject: Re: ufs is too slow? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:34:13 EST."
             <199611120034.TAA15191@fnur.3skel.com> 
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 01:20:35 -0800
Message-ID: <7358.847790435@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  > Xfs is pretty fragile from what I've heard.
> 
> SGI's XFS is actually pretty robust. We run 16 and 32GB file
> systems with it, and the performance is good. It can handle
> an FS of some-number Terabytes. It is really a journal filesystem,

Actually, Matt Dillon over at BEST Internet talked about their
experiences with XFS in a recent presentation, and his opinion of XFS
was far from flattering.  In their experience, using XFS was a good
way of crashing IRIX far too frequently for comfort.

					Jordan