Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:51:27 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> To: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> Cc: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net>, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Log file systems? (Was: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912111949240.8227-100000@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9912111914020.2035-100000@acp.swbell.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Jay Nelson wrote: > On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, David Kelly wrote: > > [snip] > > >How similar is that to the log partition in SGI's XFS? There was no > >restriction as to what spindle the log filesystem was placed. Quite to > >the contrary, it was indicated using a separate drive on a separate > >SCSI bus would help performance. > > XFS sounds a lot like AIX's JFS. Which raises the question: What is > the connection between BSD's lfs, soft updates, SGI's XFS and AIX's > jfs? Don't they all do essentially the same thing except for where the > log is written? > > 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 you'd probably be better served just checking the archives. Terry has posted about it extensively in past threads. > Finally, has anyone used soft updates with vinum? There should be no reason why it won't work, as they're orthogonal systems. Again, check the archives. Kris 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.4.21.9912111949240.8227-100000>