On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:09:49PM +0200, Jochen Kunz wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:26:04 -0700
> Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
> 
> > If someone wants to work on journaling for ffs, please don't
> > discourage  him or her.
> > 
> > LFS and FFS work well for different work loads. There are workloads
> > for  which either one of them will blow the other away. As such,
> > neither one  will replace the other for performance use under certain
> > workloads; we  need both.
> This is a good point. I didn't think of this. The same for Jorgen
> Lundman's remark about adding jornaling to FFS like a mount option just
> like softdeps.
> 
> Matt: Go for it! :-)
> (One thing to take into consideration: It may be more valuable to have
> jornaling for FFSv2 first, then for FFSv1. A FFSv2 can be much larger
> then a FFSv1...)

I'm not sure it makes a big difference supporing only one, or both.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--