Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:32:43 +0200 (CEST) From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Pedro=20F.=20Giffuni?=" <giffunip@yahoo.com> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: LFS vs FFS Message-ID: <20030330023243.79591.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi; The NetBSD guys compared FFS and LFS here: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2003/03/30/0001.html "LFS beats FFS+softdep hands down, which is not surprising." I think FFS should do colocation but since there is so little (no) interest, perhaps it's a good time to port LFS: "A preliminary conclusion is that LFS is now pretty stable for normal usage (although I didn't create any disk-nearly-full situations which make LFS' life hard), and then it does quite well. The write case is worth some investigation." Do your own comparisons though ;). Pedro. ______________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Cellulari: loghi, suonerie, picture message per il tuo telefonino http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/?http://it.mobile.yahoo.com/index2002.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030330023243.79591.qmail>