Subject: Re: LFS partition limitations
To: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
From: Tracy J. Di Marco White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/03/2000 11:15:56
}On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 10:55:14AM -0500, Tracy J. Di Marco White wrote:
}> Done. I think I'm going to end up having FFS on this partition, as I
}> need to get it into normal service as soon as possible (within a week
}> at most), but I do appreciate your help.
}> I just hope the machine never crashes, fsck will take a while.
}If it's for something sensible I would'nt recomment LFS yet - I can still
}make the kernel panic, although I admit the tests I run is not normal use :)
The idea was to have a central fileserver at home, I'm planning to keep
NetBSD's source trees on it, as well as storing all our CDs in mp3 format,
and basically anything else we find that we want to keep. Given our lack
of anything to back up something that large in a reasonable amount of
time (DLT/AIT is still a little pricey) we thought a journal/log based
filesystem would be a good thing. We're planning to back up things that
would be hard to replace, but the mp3s could be easily replicated from
the CD collection (all it takes it time, after all), source trees can
be grabbed again, etc. I convinced my husband NetBSD/LFS would be
something to try with our new drives, the machine had been running
Linux with ext2fs on the old 2GB drive. Generally we're not looking
at stress testing LFS.
}I have a NFS server (NetBSD/alpha) with a 85G filesystem, fsck takes about
That's not as bad as I thought it'd be.
Tracy J. Di Marco White
Project Vincent Systems Manager