Subject: Re: Journaling for FFS
To: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 10/02/2006 20:55:09
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:16:29PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the encouragement. Indeed LFS and FFS perform well under different
work loads which is why I wanted to get journaling for FFS (as opposed to
working on LFS like you suggested Jochen).
It is my intention to have journaling for both FFSv1 and FFSv2.