From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jul 7 12:26:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from flake.decibel.org (flake.decibel.org [64.81.115.128]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0821D37B405 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 12:26:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jim@nasby.net) Received: (qmail 85109 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2001 19:26:34 -0000 Received: from garfield.aus.decibel.org (HELO nasby.net) (sysnasby@10.1.1.51) by flake.aus.decibel.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 2001 19:26:34 -0000 Message-ID: <3B476285.43347BA1@nasby.net> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 14:27:01 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" Organization: distributed.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Uhring Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Oliver Fromme Subject: Re: JFS References: <200107071638.SAA19610@lurza.secnetix.de> <01070711475500.00362@dave> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG That article does a good job describing RFS and contrasting it to ext2fs, but it leaves several questions left un-answered in relation to ufs. RFS might be faster or more stable than ufs, but there's no way to assume that based on it's superiority to ext2fs, since ufs is also far superior to ext2fs (I'm assuming ufs with softupdates turned on here). The ability to store data within the b-tree seems to be a valuable feature. In fact, using a b-tree instead of other forms of metadata storage is very interesting; it's similar to how most database engines impliment indexes. I'm not so convinced that a journal is the greatest thing in the world, though. I think it makes much more sense to do what softupdates do.... perform updates to the filesystem atomically and in a manner where the metadata is always written first. My $0.02, dB! Dave Uhring wrote: > > On Saturday 07 July 2001 11:38, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > A. L. Meyers wrote: > > > Just installed SuSE Linux 7.2 with Reiser FS throughout on an > > > Intel SMP box. The FS purrs, even on /, which doesn't mean > > > everything is better or worse than FBSD. > > > > > > As far as I know, ReiserFS is GPL. What would porting it to > > > FreeBSD be better or worse than other (newer and less stable) > > > alternatives? > > > > Maybe a dumb question, but ... > > > > In what way is ReiserFS so much better than UFS + Soft- > > updates + background fsck, that it would justify the > > efforts of porting ReiseFS to FreeBSD? > > > > Just wondering. > > > > Regards > > Oliver > > http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fs > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message -- Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!) /^\ jim@nasby.net /___\ Freelance lighting designer and database developer / | \ Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America /___|___\ Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message