Re: WAPBL vs. lfs?

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:20:33AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> Regardless of the details (about which I believe you're mistaken) it is
> still the case that, writing a continuous stream of directory or small
> file creations, WAPBL does less than half the maximum throughput of the
> underlying drive, while LFS can get close to 100% and is generally well
> above 75%.  In normal operation there are no "dependency cycles" to break
> in LFS.

I'm not arguing relative to LFS. The comment was entirely about the
second part, comparing WAPBL with plain UFS or softdep.

Joerg