From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Dec 11 17:33:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD5D14F8C for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 17:33:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Received: from swbell.net ([207.193.44.218]) by mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FML0003FTMJZP@mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:32:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by swbell.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02048; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:25:09 -0600 (CST envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:25:09 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson Subject: Log file systems? (Was: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it?) In-reply-to: <199912120047.SAA08385@nospam.hiwaay.net> To: David Kelly Cc: Brett Glass , chat@FreeBSD.ORG 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 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