Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:24:17 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> To: Phil Regnauld <regnauld@ftf.net> Cc: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Known MMAP() race conditions ... ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990715042233.14320R-100000@cygnus.rush.net> In-Reply-To: <19990714204622.17443@ns.int.ftf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> David Schwartz writes:
> > >
> > > Doesn't beat other LFSes. And what is it good at ?
> > > Integrity ? Fragmentation (hah!)
> > > Performance ?
> >
> > Agreed. The question was not "what does NT do better than every UNIX". It
> > was "what does NT do better than any UNIX". One other nice thing about NTFS
>
> And again, XFS exists for UNIX, Softupdates will soon allow no-fsck operation...
>
> > (although certainly not unique) is that you can defragement it while it's
> > operating.
>
> FFS is even better: it doesn't fragment.
er, you're not giving it enough credit:
sysctl -a | grep alloc
the "dorealloc" thing is the flag that turns on ffs's on the fly
defragmentation.
FFS hardly fragments, but when it does, it cleans up after itself
without expensive third party software...
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@rush.net|bright@wintelcom.net]
systems administrator and programmer
Win Telecom - http://www.wintelcom.net/
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.3.96.990715042233.14320R-100000>