From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jul 29 2:22: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from deborah.paradise.net.nz (deborah.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7D737B401 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 02:22:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marki@paradise.net.nz) Received: from paradise.net.nz (203-79-102-115.tnt14.paradise.net.nz [203.79.102.115]) by deborah.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0291FB39A for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:22:03 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <3B63D5B6.5E0DF631@paradise.net.nz> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:21:58 +1200 From: Mark Ibell X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; OpenBSD 2.9 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: What about LFS? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, With all the debate that has gone on lately about FFS vs EXT2 performance, stability, etc, I decided to try out NetBSD 1.5.1's LFS. It looks incredibly promising from the few initial tests I've run on it. As an example, unpacking FreeBSD 4.3's ports tarball on it takes an incredible 38s on my Celeron 400 w/ 4GB IDE drive. This contrasts with about 1m09s for both ReiserFS & EXT2FS and about 6m33s for FFS + SOFTUPDATES. Not only was the speed incredible but you could just whack reset and the system would mount the LFS filesystem immediately (sometimes with a brief ~3s checkpoint) and continue booting as if nothing had happened. Awesome! Anyway, I'm curious as to why this code was removed from the FreeBSD sources some time ago as it appears to show more that a little promise? Perhaps some reintegration is called for. Cheers, Mark To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message