Re: WAPBL

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 01:52:04PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 1) Is WAPBL considered stable at this point? I realize -current is
>    never fully stable, but should I be as willing to risk WAPBL as I
>    am to risk -current in general, or should I wait?

I am running the branch from a few days ago and it has been completely
stable for me. YMMV, of course.

> 2) Is there any advantage to allocating a log after the partition
>    rather than within the file system?

Don't think so, but there is no disadvantage either - so if you have already
newfs'd before the in-filesystem log support turned up, there is no need
to re-newfs now. If you have no log, just use the in-filesystem log area.

> 3) Is there a reason that the journal is limited to 64M?

The journal is metadata only, and 64 M is quite a bit of metadata. I think
Solaris uses the same scaling. IIUC this limit is only the autoscaling, you
can assign bigger values via tunefs.

Martin