Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>