-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

>> 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.
Hmm, I seem to remember reading some post saying that this problem is 
dealt with, sort of.

> 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.
Yeah, I always plan to put an LFS partition on the next drive I add to 
any NetBSD box but then I forget about it until the drive in question 
is so full that I can't really repartition it without losing data - 
beginning senility or something like that ;-)

>> 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.
Last time I heard of it there were only one or two people working on it 
at all.

have fun
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iQEVAwUBQg+zvspnzkX8Yg2nAQJkvQgAu+H2QusENjH/hzfH55b8esJaZoMRQL/+
w58eUuAQYobuKAkjaNfDvrnMsywB4lFi6AR1PoZmjXExNDANypVBnEAuzr//VVCB
bHjUp7PZzz4sm+6i2A8eG6dfDfrdI5MAFWy1PrV1Vl7HDzWl47XTE5F+uzimlQqL
LhGwbvpIqC5TH+sKoOW+n7JIXsEgZLN0guR4YYOk3hYsAuYMkbdKpAmfNpT3mvwn
ti7Q5ik4FvtDcTKUuSgVboG/hKUKqUcrtm1wimrKuKG9OnwFu+kZE4n8i15tZ/K0
KMPakwpiaragdXMA+b+Zqs/qmqJGVSUkhVehxRN9f7EheRNX4gc/8g==
=y16z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----