Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 16:50:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> To: Evan Champion <evanc@synapse.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Filesystems Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950708164439.17612A-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <199507082331.TAA20064@sentinel.synapse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 8 Jul 1995, Evan Champion wrote: > We have some large disks (ie: the 9 GB variety). We really like them > because you pack a lot of data in to a small amount of space, and with > only 7 devices on a SCSI-2/FAST chain, that's important to us. You can use multiple controllers or controllers with multiple channels. This also provides a performance benefit. > I was thinking a little bit about our FreeBSD servers and how when > they go down they don't seem to spend all that long in the disk > checks. Now, maybe it is just that they also don't have these darned > 9 GB disks on them, but it was just an observation that I made. Disk checks are only done after an unclean shutdown. > Does FreeBSD do some kind of journalling that allows quick recoveries? No. But FreeBSD's fsck implementation could be more efficient. fsck time is also determined by the amount of data on a disk. > Also, I noted there is a LFS filesystem. Not having the LFS > documentation around, the name sort of implies that LFS is a > journalled filesystem. I also note that it is brand new with 4.4BSD. > Does the LFS work and how good is it at quick recoveries? 4.4BSD LFS is broken. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.950708164439.17612A-100000>