From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 9 17:32:40 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69FB10656F5 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:32:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79E18FC19 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:32:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n59HWWKm007572; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:32:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id n59HWUhJ007569; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:32:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:32:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Dan Naumov In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:01:10 +0000 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysinstall, GJOURNAL and ZFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:32:41 -0000 >> UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast. > Yes, UFS2+SoftUpdates is very fast, however, in the case of a power > loss or having to pull the plug on a locked up system, it has a > noticeably higher chance of leaving you with an unbootable system than can you please give an example how it may render unbootable system? For what i know and ever used (ext2,ext3,reiserfs,rarely NTFS, UFS) UFS is the only one that never failed. It is always recoverable, with few lost files worst case. I recommend you to read a paper about softupdates to understand why they are so good. The only problem with millions of files may be long fsck. but not THAT long, and FreeBSD doesn't crash every day. > if you were using Linux with ext3/ext4 or Windows with NTFS. Especially your last example is really bad. It's quite common for Windows and NTFS to get completely messed. >> Why you need sysinstall AT ALL? > I am well capable of doing a textmode installation using console > commands only, so _I_ don't. However, sysinstall is what the majority > of new users are presented with when giving FreeBSD a try. A new user A new user will never do anything mission critical on system he/she don't yet learned isn't it? After learning sysinstall is no longer needed. Anyway it's not bad to add this to sysinstall, i'm only suggesting you that it's probably low priority task to developers.