Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:29:58 -0700 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_shutdown.c Message-ID: <40FFEB86.2050209@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20040722092441.GH3001@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <200407212045.i6LKjHvX090599@palm.tree.com> <40FEE569.2010209@elischer.org> <40FEE6CA.3090005@samsco.org> <20040722092441.GH3001@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Wed, 2004-Jul-21 15:57:30 -0600, Scott Long wrote: >>Implementing a journalling filesystem would be a much more beneficial >>use of time here. > > You still wind up with unwritten data in RAM, just less of it. > > How much effort would be required to add journalling to UFS or UFS2? > How big a gain does journalling give you over soft-updates? Kirk pointed out something to me the other day which many people don't think about. None of the journaling systems has had its recovery mode fully tested, especially on very large systems (dozen TB). It turns out that memory pressure from per-allocation unit state is a big problem when you are trying to recover a huge volume. Just because it says "journaling" doesn't make it good. -- -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40FFEB86.2050209>