Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:00:11 -0700 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_shutdown.c Message-ID: <200407221300.11486.sam@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <40FFEB86.2050209@root.org> References: <200407212045.i6LKjHvX090599@palm.tree.com> <20040722092441.GH3001@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <40FFEB86.2050209@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 22 July 2004 09:29 am, Nate Lawson wrote: > 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. I can assure you that XFS has been well-tested with TB systems. Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407221300.11486.sam>