From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 31 11:24:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA29870 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:24:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA29848 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id UAA05833; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:21:12 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id UAA04536; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:21:11 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.2/8.6.9) id UAA17076; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:16:08 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199610311916.UAA17076@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: EFS To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:16:08 +0100 (MET) Cc: vadim@tversu.ac.ru Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <961031104344.ZM11456@Gatekeeper.Lamb.net> from Ulf Zimmermann at "Oct 31, 96 10:43:43 am" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Ulf Zimmermann wrote: (efs unstable) > I never did that observation on 5.3, also not 6.2. Irix is for me > one of the best unix machines there you can press the reset button. Except they don't have a reset button (well, only a fairly hidden one). The posted opinion is just my experience, i've seen more than one efs partition gone with nobody really knowing what has been all damaged. (The 5.3 systems used to crash very often with thei alpha-quality ISDN driver.) All this is history for me, it's been at my former employer, and they've meanwhile trashed the Indys. But it makes me reluctant about the purpose behind an `efs' implementation for us... IMHO, ufs is much more stable, at least the BSD implementation. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)