Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:41:37 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Charles Burns" <burnscharlesn@hotmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org, mail@krel.org Subject: Re: journaling file system Message-ID: <15047.51905.378804.46171@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <115704931@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Burns <burnscharlesn@hotmail.com> types: > Technically no, but the main reason to use a journaling FS is for stability > in the face of adversity (such as when power is lost in the middle of a > write) > I have tested UFS (The FreeBSD filesystem) several times by killing the > power during a write. It has never lost data as far as I can tell, and is > certainly a much mor estable filesystem than EXT2 (the reason Journaling is > such a buzzword) or FATxx (the infamous awful filesystem of the Microsoft > world) > With SoftUpdates, UFS is the second fastest filesystem that I have ever > used, second to Irix's filesystem. (Speed measured with streaming large > files, UFS probably beats Irix with many smaller files) > If you need extreme filesystem stability, UFS set to write synchronously is > stable enough to trust with a mission-critical system Of course, you should > also have at least one UPS on that mission critical system too. ;) One of the things a journalling file system buys you is quick recovery after a crash. The snapshots facility - still in development - will add that to the mix for ffs (the other name for the BSD file system). <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15047.51905.378804.46171>