On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:51:15 -0500, Michael <macallan18@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I do believe that if it were more popular, there would be
> > real pressure on the developers to write a modern filesystem.
> > FFS+softdep+dirpref+dirhash is all well and good until your machine
> > crashes and you have to fsck 260+ gigs.
> 
> Hmm, maybe someone could comment on the state of lfs? Do the bootblocks
> / loaders support it? Is it considered stable now? What about
> performance?

Well, the last time I tested it, it performed outstandingly, but still
needed to be fsck'd (although it took a lot less time than FFS or
FFS+softdep). Also, when it gets around 70% full, Bad Things start to
happen, from what I've heard.

Once this bulk pkgsrc build finishes, I'll give LFS a shot on my spare
drive (an ATA66 quantum fireball) and compare it to FFS on the same
drive.

> It's been in the source tree before the term 'journalling filesystem'
> was invented ( or at least long before it became a buzzword ).

Yeah, but I don't think anyone has ever made it production-ready.

-- 
Sean