Subject: Re: Journaling for FFS
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
From: Jorgen Lundman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/02/2006 17:39:42
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?
Jorgen Lundman | <email@example.com>
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)