Bill Stouder-Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
> Thank you. However we were wanting to compare soft updates with a 
> journaled ffs, not LFS.

 I'm sorry, i'm a little confused now.  What you previously said was:

"Do you have any recent references? Specifically NetBSD-based ones?"

 Is there a journaled FFS in NetBSD?  If not, how was i to compare this
all on NetBSD?  Or were you suggesting that we compare NetBSD FFS + soft
updates against a journaled file system on another OS like Solaris or AIX?

 It seems like this would be an inherently inaccurate comparison due to
the different ways the various OSes buffer and cache data, not to mention
things like default block sizes for writes, or file system clusters.

  I would be interested in seeing ZFS in more OSes than Solaris; i've
heard only good things about it from many Solaris sysadmins.  I'm not at
all arguing with you about this.  But it seems a little like you said,
"Show me data from a recent NetBSD" and then i did, and now you are
saying, "Show me data from a JFS," which NetBSD does not have.

How about we come at this from the other side. Can you provide any data
indicating that a JFS is substantially faster than FFS + soft updates (SU)
with comparable hardware and OS considerations?

The context of this original dicussion was improving file systems in
NetBSD.  Adding a JFS would be an improvement, of course.  But my point is
that adding background fsck to FFS might be easier and at the moment, it
seems as if it's unclear if a JFS will perform better?


  -johan