From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Jul 16 14:17:44 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from sneakerz.org (sneakerz.org [216.33.66.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D3737B403 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@sneakerz.org) Received: by sneakerz.org (Postfix, from userid 1092) id 1AD1F5D010; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:17:35 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:17:35 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Doug Rabson Cc: Sri Ramkrishna , Jason Francis , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Porting a new filesystem to FreeBSD Message-ID: <20010716161734.D22070@sneakerz.org> References: <20010716135629.C16516@ichips.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from dfr@nlsystems.com on Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:11:01PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Doug Rabson [010716 16:12] wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Sri Ramkrishna wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 09:53:47PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Sri Ramkrishna wrote: > > > > > > > To keep this on topic though, I remember some talk about journalling > > > > filesystems and getting that. Hopefully we'll have one one of these > > > > days. With disks getting larger and larger (EMC has 181G drives) it's > > > > getting harder not to go with a journalling type of filesystem. In > > > > any case, it's just a off hand comment. We'll get there I'm sure. > > > > > > Actually, back on topic, I think that FFS+softupdatess+background fsck > > > gives virtually all the benefits of journalled filesystems. > > > > > > > Do you have benchmarks or something I can look at? I'd be interested > > in the data. > > I don't have amy benchmarks personally but I expect that some others on > this list may have some. Personally, I just like the perceived performance > improvements compared to vanilla FFS. One of the problems is even with background fsck, you have a much longer period of degraded performance to both maintain the snapshot as well as scan the filesystem in the background unlike a logging filesystem which can fully recover in a much shorter time period. Still, it's not too bad. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Ok, who wrote this damn function called '??'? And why do my programs keep crashing in it? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message