Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 17:04:48 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: JFS Message-ID: <3B477970.2CD1B73B@iowna.com> References: <200107071638.SAA19610@lurza.secnetix.de> <01070711475500.00362@dave> <3B476285.43347BA1@nasby.net> <000d01c1074e$49d31ba0$0300a8c0@uhring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Uhring wrote: > You seem to have missed the critical point of that paper. When the > system goes completely haywire and either crashes or locks up so hard > that a manual reset is required, UFS/softupdates requires a substantial > amount of time to run fsck. If you have a very large filesystem, you > then have to w....a....i....t until fsck completes. And if you are > lucky, it will not terminate with the suggestion that you run fsck by > hand. With a true journalling filesystem this wait is obviated. The > last transactions are rerun or truncated and the system boots up. Actually ... according to the article, the system boots up and _then_ determines what needs done to repair the filesystem. Also, the lack of a need for fscking is not the only benefit of RieserFS. In fact, it's a _minor_ improvement. If your system is going down so often that the speed of a fsck is a major factor in the layout of the system, you've got other issues you need to address first! The other issues that might make Reiserfs a good idea (and a possible improvement over UFS) are the various improvements such as small file storage and large directory storage. I know that I'm interested in seeing performance comparisons with regard to these factors, and so far, I've seen none that compare ReiserFS to UFS/softupdates. My $.02 -Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B477970.2CD1B73B>