Subject: Re: Journaling for FFS
To: Jochen Kunz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
Date: 10/02/2006 21:16:29
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:09:49PM +0200, Jochen Kunz wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:26:04 -0700
> Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.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