From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jan 31 9:28:38 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C1F14CB3 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:28:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca ([204.244.186.218]) by mail2.uniserve.com with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 12FKcf-000B93-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:28:21 -0800 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:28:19 -0800 (PST) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Ataualpa Albert Carmo Braga Subject: Re: JFS In-Reply-To: <3895A96A.8ABB0B53@newsguy.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > I do know. The main reason why LFS was never updated isn't that it was > made obsolete by softupdates, as claimed above, but that it was made > obsolete by JFS. Why work on LFS if it is not up to a JFS? Well, a log structured file system has some interesting performance characteristics. It is also rather a curiosity too, as there are so few implementations. I understand that the WAFL filesystem is basically log structured. > Unfortunately, the people who have to suffer enourmous waits after > crashes usually have way more to do, even if they have the skills to fix > LFS. > > With the disks getting bigger and bigger, this is due to change. > > BTW, NetBSD is happy with _their_ _functional_ LFS. Maybe somebody should import it. I was kind of disappointed to learn that the U in NetBSD UVM doesn't stand for unified, and that NetBSD still doesn't have a unified VM. This pretty much kills any advantage NetBSD could have these days. > -- > Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) > dcs@newsguy.com > dcs@freebsd.org > > "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message