Re: WAPBL vs. lfs?

["Toru Nishimura" <locore64%alkyltechnology.com@localhost>]

Thor Lancelot Simon wrote

> ... well under half
> the maximum throughput of the disk in many such cases -- and that is even
> if you don't subtract the extra-writes penalty for the journal (all
> metadata is effectively written twice).

The performace degregration of FFS WAPBL journaling is quite noticiable
for slow computers.  Journaling is a sort of "high availablity" feature in
return of cost, for CPU and disk IO handwidth.  I would pick FFS softdep
rather than log which should be carefully intended for application domain
where it does matter.

Toru Nishimura / ALKYL Technology