Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:17:46 +0100 From: "Steven Hartland" <killing@multiplay.co.uk> To: "Matthias Buelow" <mkb@incubus.de>, "Jon Dama" <jd@ugcs.caltech.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> Subject: Re: Sysinstall automatic filesystem size generation. Message-ID: <005401c5ad4c$1349ca90$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> References: <200508291836.j7TIaVEk013147@gw.catspoiler.org><20050829185933.GB1462@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net><431362ED.9030800@mac.com><20050829204714.GC1462@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net><43137AFB.9060304@mac.com><20050829215613.GD1462@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net><431390A0.5080007@mac.com><20050830002051.GE1462@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net><4313AB8D.4010807@paradise.net.nz><Pine.LNX.4.53.0508291750030.20467@riyal.ugcs.caltech.edu> <20050830011632.GG1462@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I must say in the 10 years of using Windows on my desktop and on servers I've never once had to deal with NTFS loosing data. In addition to that I dont have to sit though 1 hour worth of offline checks when it crashes for what ever reason which I do on our FreeBSD boxes. >From our experiences, the issues with the current FS would be the primary factor for begrudgingly moving to another OS as for large FS's its getting simple unwieldy especially since foreground checks are often required :( There is a great amount of new work going into FreeBSD with loads of improvements in a wide range of areas which is great but I do believe the FS really does need to attract some more focus as is not something that can solved quickly and is beginning to become a sticking point. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Buelow" <mkb@incubus.de> > Can it be put into softupdates at all? From what I understand (which > is probably a rather sketchy idea of the matter), write barriers > work because they are only used here to separate journal writes > from data writes (i.e., to make sure the log is written, by flushing > the cache, before any filesystem data hits the platters). I've read > the softupdates paper some time ago and haven't found similar > sequence points where one could insert such flushing. One would > have to "flush" all the time, either continuously or in very short > intervals, in order to keep the ordering, which then would amount > to the same effects as if one simply disabled the cache. But probably > I'm wrong here (I hope). ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?005401c5ad4c$1349ca90$b3db87d4>