Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:23:29 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Evan Champion <evanc@synapse.net> Cc: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files options src/sys/i386/conf LINT src/sys/i386/i386 autoconf.c src/sys/kern init_main.c init_sys Message-ID: <19980130162329.10474@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <015201bd2dc9$c7e51f00$2844c00a@cello.synapse.net>; from Evan Champion on Jan 01, 1998 at 04:55:29PM -0500 References: <015201bd2dc9$c7e51f00$2844c00a@cello.synapse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 01, 1998 at 04:55:29PM -0500, Evan Champion wrote: > >I was supposed to. LFS has fallen out of favor of alot of people who > >supposedly "know." > > Hum... Considering LFS has never worked, I wonder who it fell out of favour > with? For almost every 4.4BSD user, it was never an option to begin with. > Unless it fell out of favour for not working :-) > > Having to wait 30 minutes for my servers to fsck sure makes LFS a pretty > appealing idea to me, and it's really too bad that it has been shelved. If > there's something physically wrong with the LFS and someone has a better > idea, that's one thing, but otherwise I hope someone is able to resurrect > LFS soon... Well, from what I understand of LFS, it performs best as a 'write-only' filesystem. You aren't really supposed to be reading from an LFS, you should be reading from your memory cache. From that perspective, I heard one professor call a 64MB cache "small" for a LFS system. Although perhaps it might be suited for news, where most data just hits the disk and then expires without being read? -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980130162329.10474>