Subject: Re: the usability of LFS
To: Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Sean Davis <email@example.com>
Date: 07/03/2004 10:03:35
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 15:36:52 +0200, Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 12:42:21PM -0400, Brian Hechinger wrote:
> > LFS however, is going to extremes though. i can use something other than FFS
> > on pretty much every OS except this one. that's a real shame.
> Probably off topic to this thread, but anyway:
> I'm happy with ffs on raid 1; I'm not too concerned about fsck performance
> since it's relatively great on NetBSD with ffs (thanks Charles!) and
> NetBSD has been nice to me on my server machines and just does not crash,
> and I have UPS, so I don't realy need a journaling file system (not to
> confuse lfs for one).
> Are there still benefits from lfs over ffs with softdeps? I haven't seen
> conclusive benchmarks, IIRC.
The last time I benchmarked LFS vs. FFS (this was after the LFS+UBC
code went in) it was phenomenally faster on writes, a little faster
(IIRC) on reads, and a little faster (IIRC again) on seeks. I used
bonnie and bonnie++. Alas, I don't have those test results around
anymore, and no longer have a spare disk for testing.
> It will be interesting to see how fluf behaves on real world workloads.