--bajzpZikUji1w+G9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Boatman on the River of Suck wrot=
e:
> Well, the reason why I wanted to use LFS on my /usr is that I wanted to
> avoid fsck's, which take a while on my 360 GB fs.

Well, you're welcome to turn of automatic fscking in /etc/fstab,
trust that things get synced properly by shutdown(8), and always
make sure you boot to single user and fsck by hand should the
machine ever not be shut down properly. That doesn't leave a lot of
fabric between you and your seat for obvious reasons, though.

The bottom line is that, fsck or no, FFS will be crazy-faster (and,
apparently, useable versus not, in light of the mmap(2) brokenness
in current LFS) than LFS for the expected and average usage pattern
on /usr.

--=20
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

--bajzpZikUji1w+G9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjwYXOQACgkQ9ehacAz5CRp1ZQCdEma7ZwxLbdF5L/A1lGvPJ5a8
6kMAniANbX0EQdUyJ+JzFV1PFnCEpX9t
=msCp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bajzpZikUji1w+G9--