From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Dec 11 19:51:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id 346E715106; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:51:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC941CD749; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:51:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:51:27 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway To: Jay Nelson Cc: David Kelly , Brett Glass , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Log file systems? (Was: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it?) In-Reply-To: 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, Jay Nelson wrote: > 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? These are FAQs - instead of wasting peoples cycles in explaining it again you'd probably be better served just checking the archives. Terry has posted about it extensively in past threads. > Finally, has anyone used soft updates with vinum? There should be no reason why it won't work, as they're orthogonal systems. Again, check the archives. Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message