Subject: Re: LFS
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@marconicomms.com>
Date: 04/14/2000 19:03:05
Hans-Christian Becker wrote:
> >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.
What exactly happens? kernel crashes? Have you written
> Aaargh! I have (recently) put everything except / on LFS because of
> the performance gain. I was under the impression that LFS was OK in
> -current, but I never really got that confirmed. I *do* know that
It is OK, mostly :-) There are a few outstanding bugs, but for
normal use it should work fine. You can search the mail-archives
and gnats for the few outstanding known problems. Off my head,
LFS is very likely to corrupt when the partition fills up.
> once you get corruption you are (literally!) fscked. I have gotten fs
Well, if you do know this, then I guess you also know that you
have to do regular backups :-)
> corruption, but that was due to my being brain-dead. Do you mean that
> the fs corrupts itself, without luser intervention? In that case,
> maybe the paragraph describing LFS on
> http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/features.html#filesystems should be
> rewritten. From the 'features' page, I was actually lead to believe
> that LFS was in a useful state.
Well, if nobody uses it, the remaining bugs will never be
found and ironed out :-) I'd personally do regular backups
and use it for not mission critical stuff like obj-dirs.