Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:09:59 +0100 (MET) From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: journaling UFS and LFS Message-ID: <199911010709.IAA05130@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910241018530.5419-100000@piano.innominate.local> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910301210360.43638-100000@calis.blacksun.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Don <don@calis.blacksun.org> wrote: > Softupdates is definitely a viable solution however it does not > address several issues and the license is not a BSD license so it > makes me uncomfortable. Well, Kirk's idea is to put them under a BSD-style license as soon as possible, so in the long run, you might waste engergy... What `several issues' are you referring to? Kirk mentioned us in a comparision between various methods that there are exactly two problems he's seeing on the downside for softupdates: code complexity, and a large memory footprint. So unless you're working for machines with little memory, what else do you have in mind? (For those interested, for transaction logging, the downside is that it won't help for occasional filesystem operations, since it doubles the disk IO for this. It only helps the case `massive filesystem operations' like "rm -rf" etc.) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911010709.IAA05130>