At Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:44:19 -0400 (EDT),
Andrew Gillham <gillhaa@ghost.whirlpool.com> wrote:

> Hmm, why don't we change '/' to reside on a LFS while we're at it?
> After all there are some performance advantages, and who _really_ needs
> crufty old FFS anymore anyway?  I don't see any reason a sane person
> wouldn't want a unified '/' and '/usr' sitting on a nice LFS partition.

Does anyone have a stable LFS partition?
I've been trying to use LFS recently, but from my experience,
LFS has a very short MTBF, ranging from hours to weeks.

Although LFS gives dramatic performance gain in some situations, it's
a pity we do not have an usable fsck_lfs and we are rendered to
recreate a filesystem. How hard will it be to implement writable fsck_lfs?

--
IWAMOTO Toshihiro