From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 13 06:11:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA18526 for current-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:11:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from bbs.mpcs.com (hgoldste@bbs.mpcs.com [204.215.226.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA18517 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:11:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from hgoldste@localhost) by bbs.mpcs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2/MPCS) id JAA30752; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:10:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:10:59 -0500 From: Howard Goldstein Message-Id: <199611131410.JAA30752@bbs.mpcs.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: ufs is too slow? In-Reply-To: <199611120120.SAA19129@phaeton.artisoft.com> Reply-To: hgoldste@bbs.mpcs.com Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In article <199611120120.SAA19129@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert wrote: : Again, news articles are created, written only once, and not updated; : there's really no reason to get more complex on a "newsfs" than doing : what you can to speed up indexing, etc.. And that can be just as easily : laid on *top* of *any* FS -- after all, the indices won't change : significantly either, if they have correct organizing principles, since : the data they refer to is invariant until expiration or creation. The only catch is with regard to overview files, one per newsgroup, to which per-article header data are appended. Whether or not it's a large catch in the discussion about what I call an "expfs", an expendable filesystem with a care-less (careless) attitude towards integrity, I do not know. -- Howard Goldstein