Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:32:25 -0600 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Log file systems? (Was: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it?) Message-ID: <199912130332.VAA33187@nospam.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: Message from Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> of "Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:13:32 CST." <Pine.BSF.4.05.9912112245060.2635-100000@acp.swbell.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jay Nelson writes: > Terry's posts did answer a number of questions. Specifically that lfs > and soft updates both could only roll a file system back to a known > good state -- instead of a journaled file system which is capable of > rolling forward to a known state. Neither lfs or soft updates > appear to have much to do with journaling. Still, I didn't find > anything that explained the decision to go with soft updates. Perhaps > I missed the relevant threads. Were they prior to '98? I believe the correct answer as to why today we have soft updates rather than lfs is simply the fact Dr. McKusick tackled soft updates and made it reliable and easy to apply before anybody got lfs to the same state. Can't find any mention if XFS for Linux has been released. May 1999 announcemnt that SGI intends to: http://www.sgi.com/developers/oss/sgi_resources/feature5.html More info on XFS: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/xfs-whitepaper.html -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912130332.VAA33187>