From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Sep 24 14:44:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29950 for fs-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [207.170.17.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29944 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from right.PCS (right.PCS [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA14012; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:44:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id QAA09907; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:43:36 -0500 Message-ID: <19970924164335.39206@right.PCS> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:43:35 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon To: Brandon Gillespie Cc: Wilko Bulte , tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Known problems with async ufs? References: <199709241734.TAA00972@yedi.iaf.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.61.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Brandon Gillespie on Sep 09, 1997 at 01:56:11PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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