Subject: Re: LFS
To: Christian Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Sean Davis <email@example.com>
Date: 05/19/2004 12:02:34
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:24:08 +0100 (BST), Christian Smith
> On Tue, 18 May 2004, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 01:21:05PM -0500, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
> >> Does LFS work well enough for production use in 1.6.2?
> >In 2.0 it looks OK (I use it for my /usr/src), but it may not in 1.6.2
> I had some random corruption during the 1.6 -current series, which I
> presume is down to it being in a permanent state of experimentation.
> I'd say before even thinking about putting it into production, test that
> it actually is faster for your needs than regular FFS. I found that using
> bonnie at least, it was actually slower, especially on writes where LFS
> was designed to excel.
When I gave it a whole (19GB) disk to play with, the last time I
tested it, it was a hell of a lot faster than regular FFS or
FFS+softdep. But, it still has the problem of going absolutely nuts if
the LFS partition gets more than a certain percentage (70%) full,
causing a big waste of disk space.
> My 2c, don't bother.
I agree. If you want something speedy (depending on how you use it)
for data you can easily restore, and don't mind if your system craps
its diaper every so often, go for it. If you care about the data
you're storing, stay away from LFS.