From owner-freebsd-fs Fri Jul 31 09:47:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18032 for freebsd-fs-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:47:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA18024 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:47:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jetienne@ifhamy.insa-lyon.fr) From: jetienne@ifhamy.insa-lyon.fr Received: from aralia.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.42] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:47:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from qmailr@meaux10-239.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.6.239] by smtp.wanadoo.fr for Paris Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:47:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 216 invoked by uid 501); 31 Jul 1998 16:21:57 -0000 Message-ID: <19980731162157.215.qmail@hwi.poi.org> Subject: hmm lfs vs metadatalog To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:21:57 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org hi im new on this list and i have a question about lfs. why lfs is a "completly" log fs (i.e. data + metadata) and not a ffs + metadatalog. according to "the unix internals - the new frontiers" the second appreach is lighter and more efficient ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message