Subject: Re: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: Andrew Gillham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: gabriel rosenkoetter <email@example.com>
Date: 07/30/2001 19:18:02
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 01:05:15PM -0700, Andrew Gillham wrote:
> Yes, I was abusing the poor partition. :) But to Bill's point you
> can easily run out of free/clean segments if you have something that
> is using segments at a high rate. (e.g. database / high volume MTA)
Sure. Theoretically LFS should be able to be graceful about that
too, up to a point, but it's possible to break just about any file
system if you work hard enough at it.
Also, perhaps I misunderstood what Bill was saying, in light of
Jason's most recent response. Fwiw, I'm no part of releng, so I
probably shouldn't be speaking to what will or won't happen with ufs
for 1.6. It also sounds like I didn't quite understand the complexity
of UBC (I can see why it would be considerably more difficult atop
LFS than atop FFS).
Anyway, the bottom line is that LFS is good for partitions you want
to be able to write quickly to (including adding files) in bursts,
but which you won't need to go changing files around on very much.
Ideal for pkgsrc, not so for cvsroot. Which, I hope, isn't news to
~ g r @ eclipsed.net