From owner-freebsd-fs Thu Sep 21 14:15:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EACF37B42C for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03918; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:15:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAATeaWFh; Thu Sep 21 14:15:18 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA17206; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:14:59 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200009212114.OAA17206@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Journaling Filesystems in bsd? (LFS, anyone?) To: dg@root.com Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:14:59 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tuinstra@clarkson.edu (Dwight Tuinstra), freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG (freebsd-fs) In-Reply-To: <200009211638.JAA09518@implode.root.com> from "David Greenman" at Sep 21, 2000 09:38:12 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Have you done any comparisons with FFS+softupdates? The goal of softupdates > was to be as fast or faster than LFS for everything, not require a cleanerd, > and along with "snapshots" eliminate requiring fsck before system startup. Soft updates can not get around the full fsck problem. See my other posting under the title "Crash recovery", wherein I compare the crash recovery mechanisms, with special attention to the soft updates problem with abbreviated crash recovery. Soft updates does some good things, but it also does some bad things (at least relative to an LFS or JFS, and crash recovery). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message