Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:13:32 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Log file systems? (Was: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9912112245060.2635-100000@acp.swbell.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912111949240.8227-100000@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Kris Kennaway wrote: [snip] >> Also -- and this is just curiosity, why did we go with soft updates >> instead of finishing lfs? Aside from the fact that soft updates >> appears cleaner than lfs, is there any outstanding superiority of one >> over the other? > >These are FAQs - instead of wasting peoples cycles in explaining it again I'm sure you're right, but I couldn't find the answer in the FAQ I supped this morning. Is there a different FAQ? >you'd probably be better served just checking the archives. Terry has >posted about it extensively in past threads. Terry's posts did answer a number of questions. Specifically that lfs and soft updates both could only roll a file system back to a known good state -- instead of a journaled file system which is capable of rolling forward to a known state. Neither lfs or soft updates appear to have much to do with journaling. Still, I didn't find anything that explained the decision to go with soft updates. Perhaps I missed the relevant threads. Were they prior to '98? Sorry for wasting your cycles. -- Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9912112245060.2635-100000>