Subject: Re: Journaling for FFS
To: Jochen Kunz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 10/02/2006 09:26:04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:34:16AM +0200, Jochen Kunz wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 23:38:43 +0100
> M J Fleming <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I understand that this year's Google Summer of Code project to provide
> > journaling support to FFS wasn't successful, however I feel that the
> > project is worthwhile and would love to see it come to fruition.
> 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.
If someone wants to work on journaling for ffs, please don't discourage=20
him or her.
LFS and FFS work well for different work loads. There are workloads for=20
which either one of them will blow the other away. As such, neither one=20
will replace the other for performance use under certain workloads; we=20
> 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.
As above, if someone wants to work on ffs, please don't discourage. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----