From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 18 9:38:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34D137B419 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:38:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from karma.iats.missouri.edu ([128.206.94.220]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id YT1A4DS1; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:38:12 -0600 Subject: Re: Instead of JFS, why not a whole new FS? From: Ryan Dooley To: hawkeyd@visi.com Cc: dreyenga@telus.net, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200112172325.fBHNP7S55235@sheol.localdomain> References: <001301c1874d$50ae0d20$02000003_tornado@ns.sol.net> <200112172325.fBHNP7S55235@sheol.localdomain> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-rDuHo358zTGm28ixbbGU" X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0 (Preview Release) Date: 18 Dec 2001 11:40:38 -0600 Message-Id: <1008697238.4756.2.camel@karma.iats.missouri.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --=-rDuHo358zTGm28ixbbGU Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 > UFS/FFS is/are proven through time. Throw in the softupdates technology, > and you have the upside of journalling, without the downside of journalli= ng. > No. I'm not going into details, first because I'm not qualified, and seco= nd, > others already have. I think the bottom line to this whole thread is most folks out there want a quick recovery (i.e., fast fsck's for large volumes). =20 I'm one of those folks who's gotten used to {XFS, JFS, EXT3, ReiserFS, AdvFS, etc.}. Sure, journaling has it's issues (and I'm no expert), but still having to wait for a fsck is a pain on large volumes, where as waiting X number of seconds for a journal log replay is much easier to contend with. =20 I've got a 891GB volume that's about 20% full, that takes 90 minutes or so to fsck (and that's on a fiber channel, hardware RAID1+0 array). I'm glad softupdates ensure the integrity of my data, but the wait is killer in this production system :-) > The one thing that journalling FSes deliver that FFS with softupdates doe= sn't > right now is a 'fsck'less boot after an uncontrolled shutdown. I have rea= d > that the Project has this on their TODO list. Yep... that's it exactly. I can't wait for 5.x (or fsck -B to be MFC'd from -CURRENT :-) Cheers, Ryan --=-rDuHo358zTGm28ixbbGU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA8H3+WGSRAlssTqScRAsrtAJ49RVYrQ3XpkXEFtFYpSJgpmNHPBACgrAjV JERZf6vaBaAgPwwTQ8IkG4A= =z676 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-rDuHo358zTGm28ixbbGU-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message