Jochen Kunz wrote:
> Well. As we now have an, at least in -current, working LFS, I sugest to
> concentrate efforts on LFS. LFS will give you better performance then
> FFS with the instant crash recovery a journaled FFS would deliver.
> 
> I found LFS to be stable in day to day operation, including bad
> situations like nearly full file systems and crashes. (The crashes where
> not caused by LFS.) AFAIK there are some issues with resize_lfs(8) and
> there are no snapshots. If you wane spend some time with NetBSD working
> on a file system, I sugest to invest your energy into LFS.

I may very well be incorrect with this, but one of the nicest things with 
logging in Solaris is that it is just a mount option. I can chose to turn it on, 
or off, later if I had forgotten to do so at setup.

LFS has to be newfs'ed, which makes it a huge hassle, especially if you want to 
just try it for a while to see if it is stable. You can't just un-LFS back.

If there was a tool to LFS-ify an existing FFS filesystem, then we'd be cookin'!


... Is that still the case?

Lund

-- 
Jorgen Lundman       | <lundman@lundman.net>
Unix Administrator   | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work)
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo    | +81 (0)90-5578-8500          (cell)
Japan                | +81 (0)3 -3375-1767          (home)