Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:25:09 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> To: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Log file systems? (Was: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9912111914020.2035-100000@acp.swbell.net> In-Reply-To: <199912120047.SAA08385@nospam.hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, David Kelly wrote: [snip] >How similar is that to the log partition in SGI's XFS? There was no >restriction as to what spindle the log filesystem was placed. Quite to >the contrary, it was indicated using a separate drive on a separate >SCSI bus would help performance. XFS sounds a lot like AIX's JFS. Which raises the question: What is the connection between BSD's lfs, soft updates, SGI's XFS and AIX's jfs? Don't they all do essentially the same thing except for where the log is written? Also -- and this is just curiosity, why did we go with soft updates instead of finishing lfs? Aside from the fact that soft updates appears cleaner than lfs, is there any outstanding superiority of one over the other? Finally, has anyone used soft updates with vinum? -- Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9912111914020.2035-100000>