> > 1) background fsck
> 
> I don't think that background fsck is a good idea.

FreeBSD's background fsck works great.  I see no reason it would
work less well with NetBSD.

> While it'd be nice to=20
> not have to wait on boot, I think the other options for a fast boot will=20
> serve us better. Namely journaling.

Soft updates gives higher performance than journaling in most (not all) cases.

> Sure, background fsck can get you moving faster, but you STILL have to=20
> fsck the whole disk.

Actually you don't *have* to run fsck at all.  The only thing fsck does is
recover lost space.  You can nice fsck down or not run it at all.

> With journaling, you only have to worry about writing at most the=20
> journal's worth of data. That would typicaly be a few tens or hundreds of=
> =20
> megabytes. And you know right where it is, so you just write it and you're=
> =20
> done.

But journaling gives worse performance in most cases.  Ideally you'd like
to have a choice, in case you have an application that performs better with
journaling.

The hard work, soft updates, has been done.  Adding background fsck should
be relatively easy.  Adding background fsck would not prevent someone
from adding a new filesystem with journaling.  Saying you oppose background
fsck because you prefer journaling is like opposing bash because you prefer
ksh.  They aren't mutually exclusive.  You can have more than one type of
filesystem mounted at the same time.