Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:43:35 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@roguetrader.com> Cc: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl>, tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Known problems with async ufs? Message-ID: <19970924164335.39206@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970924135516.6508A-100000@roguetrader.com>; from Brandon Gillespie on Sep 09, 1997 at 01:56:11PM -0600 References: <199709241734.TAA00972@yedi.iaf.nl> <Pine.BSF.3.96.970924135516.6508A-100000@roguetrader.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 09, 1997 at 01:56:11PM -0600, Brandon Gillespie wrote: > Ok... what (if any) plans are there to make async at least as ''stable'' > as ext2fs? I'm under the impression that ext2fs does something so it can > recover from "bad things" better.. Ah, but async FFS _is_ just as stable as async ext2fs. Actually, that's not quite true; I believe that async FFS still takes some more precautions than async ext2fs, so it may be slower. And no, ext2fs doesn't do anything that I know of that allows it to recover "better" than FFS. As far as performance, there is work underway to make sync FFS just as fast as async, without sacrificing crash-recovery reliability. -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970924164335.39206>