--v9Ux+11Zm5mwPlX6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 <scs5mjf@comp.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
>=20
> > 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
need both.

> 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. :-)

Take care,

Bill

--v9Ux+11Zm5mwPlX6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFFIT2cWz+3JHUci9cRAmBbAJ93stgX8x1tHSG5YjkwINnnxptVSwCbBGfI
7e+cVRThJI6JdZ4cCwMq79M=
=sLtg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--v9Ux+11Zm5mwPlX6--