From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 28 7:19:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADC837B43E for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 07:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (jrs@shell-1.enteract.com [207.229.143.40]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA02262; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:18:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jrs@enteract.com) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:18:23 -0500 (CDT) From: John Sconiers To: Brad Knowles Cc: Johann Visagie , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SGI releases XFS under GPL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Can you please explain the difference in XFS and softupdates and why soft updates would be more desireable than a journaling file system. I understand what XFS is but based on your comments I get the feeling that I have the wrong impression of what softupdates is and how it performs. I know there are papers on the subject(s). Any one got a link? JRS > However, XFS doesn't have "softupdates", and I don't know of any > way to apply something like "softupdates" to it. And for what we're > doing, I'm not sure how much it matters to us to have something like > Veritas VxFS on our machines if that meant we'd have to give up > "softupdates". > All-in-all, I'm just not sure if the overall net change would be > a positive or a negative, and for whom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message