Re: state or future of LFS?

[Christopher Chen <muffaleta%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Wouter Klouwen <dublet%acm.org@localhost> 
wrote:
> Niels Dettenbach(nd%syndicat.com@localhost) said 2009.04.10 14:18:00 +0000:
>> what is the current usability state of the LFS (Log-structured File System)?
>
> AFAIK, in 5.0 it is dropped due to some kernel changes that no one wanted to
> feed through into LFS.

It's a shame, but this happened before I think when we went to UBC (I
think so, anyway! I don't think it was UVM). Konrad picked it up and
got it more or less working by 2, but yeah, I imagine it's not a
priority for him.

>> Did someone have practical experiences (stability, performance, handling...)
>> with LFS within productive environments? Are there any other interesting
>> alternatives under NetBSD?
>
> I've used it on my 4.0 machine, on an external USB drive. It's been
> generally very stable and very quick. The only problems occur when the
> drive fills up, usually around 80%. These problems are crashes, but I've not
> seen any data loss.
> This is of course very limited experience.
>
>> Did someone played or worked with other filesystem alternatives for large 
>> hard
>> disks (i.e. some cluster FS's a.o.) then the default FFS with interesting
>> results?
>
> IMO, there is no alternative for LFS on NetBSD.

I am not aware of anything available on any of the BSDs either. I did
see something in FreeBSD about a geom journal facility, and apparently
FFS has journaling now too, but hey, it's not logging.

I was going to make a joke about putting a saddle on a seahorse, but, heh.

Cheers

cc

-- 
Chris Chen <muffaleta%gmail.com@localhost>
"I want the kind of six pack you can't drink."
-- Micah