From owner-freebsd-fs Thu Sep 21 14:50:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from implode.root.com (root.com [209.102.106.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92DD37B424 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA10470; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200009212146.OAA10470@implode.root.com> To: Terry Lambert Cc: tuinstra@clarkson.edu (Dwight Tuinstra), freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG (freebsd-fs) Subject: Re: Journaling Filesystems in bsd? (LFS, anyone?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:14:59 -0000." <200009212114.OAA17206@usr08.primenet.com> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:46:10 -0700 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). I didn't say it could. What I said is that it didn't need to be run before system startup occured. -DG David Greenman Co-founder, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org President, TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message