From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 29 18:32:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856C537B401 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:32:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from web13404.mail.yahoo.com (web13404.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AEA643FB1 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:32:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from giffunip@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20030330023243.79591.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.91.194.243] by web13404.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:32:43 CEST Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:32:43 +0200 (CEST) From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Pedro=20F.=20Giffuni?=" To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: LFS vs FFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:32:44 -0000 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