[ I suggest moving this thread from port-i386@ to netbsd-users@ ]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:46:11 -0500, Sean Davis wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:51:15 -0500, Michael <macallan18@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Hmm, maybe someone could comment on the state of lfs? Do the bootblocks
>> / loaders support it? Is it considered stable now? What about
>> performance?
> 
> Well, the last time I tested it, it performed outstandingly, but still
> needed to be fsck'd (although it took a lot less time than FFS or

It should take several seconds only, no? At least that's my experience.

> FFS+softdep). Also, when it gets around 70% full, Bad Things start to
> happen, from what I've heard.

It's less predictable. Once I filled it completely with a mozilla build
and nothing bad happened. Most of the time iit was more full than 70% and
it worked OK. On the other hand, I got one panic IIRC unrelated to a disk
full condition: PR kern/28367, and one deadlock when browsing with mozilla
(whose cache was on LFS), after which fsck_lfs dumps core on that
partition: PR bin/29151. (That filesystem is not completely corrupted: I
was able to mount it and copy some file from it without problems.)

I would recommend using LFS on a desktop machine which doesn't have to be
ultra-reliable, for transient, often-written data such as temporary CVS
checkouts and object directories. Just don't put anything precious there
and be prepared to newfs the partition.

Bye	Pavel