Subject: Re: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/29/2001 14:01:40
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 04:28:04PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> # The ability to set the clock backwards may also be used to confuse
> # audit trails and LFSv1, though I think it's fixed in LFSv2.
> ....with all I've been hearing about LFS and seeing the headaches
> concerning it (rearranging the order of data on disk, having a cleanerd,
> and now the above), I posit that LFS is a horribly fragile filesystem
The above is fixed in LFSv2. What problem do you have with the cleanerd ?
> model, and I'm wondering why we don't do a generic logging/journaling layer
> that can overlay FFS (or any other filesystem we'd like journaling on, but
> FFS comes to mind since it and LFS are the only ones for which we run
> a consistency check at boot time). Perhaps I'm being a bit simplistic,
> and I'm SURE I'm missing something here (in which case someone will gladly
> thump me soundly with a clue*4, I'm sure), but in concept, it sounds like
> a potentially much better win than LFS is capable of providing.
LFS has much, much more potentials than would have a journaled FFS:
- stuffs like snapshots, backup of incremental changes, etc ... are
realy easy to do with LFS
- In LFS, data are also journalised, wich is a real win for some applications.
Not to speack about performances, which are much better than FFS (especially
for a lot of small files).
And I certainly forget other things.
Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>