From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jul 7 14: 8:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.the-i-pa.com (mail.the-i-pa.com [151.201.71.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CEC737B405 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 14:08:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wmoran@iowna.com) Received: (qmail 3217 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2001 21:17:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iowna.com) (151.201.71.193) by mail.the-i-pa.com with SMTP; 7 Jul 2001 21:17:17 -0000 Message-ID: <3B477970.2CD1B73B@iowna.com> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 17:04:48 -0400 From: Bill Moran X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: JFS References: <200107071638.SAA19610@lurza.secnetix.de> <01070711475500.00362@dave> <3B476285.43347BA1@nasby.net> <000d01c1074e$49d31ba0$0300a8c0@uhring.com> 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 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