On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:26:04 -0700
Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:

> If someone wants to work on journaling for ffs, please don't
> discourage  him or her.
>=20
> LFS and FFS work well for different work loads. There are workloads
> for  which either one of them will blow the other away. As such,
> neither one  will replace the other for performance use under certain
> workloads; we  need both.
This is a good point. I didn't think of this. The same for Jorgen
Lundman's remark about adding jornaling to FFS like a mount option just
like softdeps.

Matt: Go for it! :-)
(One thing to take into consideration: It may be more valuable to have
jornaling for FFSv2 first, then for FFSv1. A FFSv2 can be much larger
then a FFSv1...)
--=20


tsch=FC=DF,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/