From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jan 30 22:26:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from noop.colo.erols.net (noop.colo.erols.net [207.96.1.150]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E600214DFD for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:22:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gjp@in-addr.com) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=in-addr.com) by noop.colo.erols.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12FADj-000LZ7-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:21:55 -0500 To: Tom Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG From: Gary Palmer Subject: Re: JFS In-Reply-To: Message from Tom of "Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:29:06 PST." Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:21:45 -0500 Message-ID: <82900.949299705@in-addr.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Tom wrote in message ID : > 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