Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:21:45 -0500 From: Gary Palmer <gjp@in-addr.com> To: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: JFS Message-ID: <82900.949299705@in-addr.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Tom <tom@uniserve.com> of "Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:29:06 PST." <Pine.BSF.4.05.10001302126530.23661-100000@shell.uniserve.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tom wrote in message ID <Pine.BSF.4.05.10001302126530.23661-100000@shell.uniserve.ca>: > On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > > > > Due to the lack of interest, FreeBSD's LFS has fallen into disrepair > > > over the years. With the implementation of softupdates in FreeBSD I > > > don't think there is any need for LFS any more. > > > > Repeat that over and over the next time you wait fsck finish a 40 Gb > > filesystem checkup, and see if you manage to convince yourself of that. > > Actually, one of the goals of the softupdates development is a fsck'less > filesystem. I'm not sure how this is to be achieved. Probably a metadata > journal, though that is just speculation. All the work on metadata update > ordering in softupdates would probably apply very nicely to a journal. The way I understand it is that SoftUpdates is meant to leave the metadata consistant enough that the filesystem can be mounted read/write immediately at boot, and then have a background fsck go through and remove blocks which are allocated in the bitmaps, but aren't really used. The only thing you lose by not running the background daemon is space. I don't think anyone's running like this today, but that is Kirks plan. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?82900.949299705>