On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Ty Sarna writes:
> > Why do major whacking on MFS? Seems to me it'd be much easier to just
> > write a new fs type from scratch rather than attempting to change code
> > built around totally different assumptions.
> 
> I don't think anyone was proposing otherwise.

I think that John Dyson was proposing to do otherwise. And whacking
on MFS (or really, UFS, as he pointed out) seems like it would be
faster to me, since you don't have to re-write all the inode stuff
right away.

The performance improvement from just modifying the current MFS to
do fewer (ideally no) copies is going to be a big win. The performance
improvement from completely changing the filesystem structure is
going to be a much smaller win, and take much longer to implement.
I'll be happy to take the big win now and the smaller win at some
indefinite time in the future. :-)

cjs

Curt Sampson    cjs@portal.ca		Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc.	
Vancouver, BC   (604) 257-9400		De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.