From owner-cvs-all Fri Jan 30 14:25:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07705 for cvs-all-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:25:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [207.170.17.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA07653; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:24:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jlemon@americantv.com) Received: from right.PCS (right.PCS [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA13596; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:24:09 -0600 (CST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id QAA29260; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:23:30 -0600 Message-ID: <19980130162329.10474@right.PCS> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:23:29 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: Evan Champion Cc: "John S. Dyson" , Ollivier Robert , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files options src/sys/i386/conf LINT src/sys/i386/i386 autoconf.c src/sys/kern init_main.c init_sys References: <015201bd2dc9$c7e51f00$2844c00a@cello.synapse.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.61.1 In-Reply-To: <015201bd2dc9$c7e51f00$2844c00a@cello.synapse.net>; from Evan Champion on Jan 01, 1998 at 04:55:29PM -0500 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe cvs-all" On Jan 01, 1998 at 04:55:29PM -0500, Evan Champion wrote: > >I was supposed to. LFS has fallen out of favor of alot of people who > >supposedly "know." > > Hum... Considering LFS has never worked, I wonder who it fell out of favour > with? For almost every 4.4BSD user, it was never an option to begin with. > Unless it fell out of favour for not working :-) > > Having to wait 30 minutes for my servers to fsck sure makes LFS a pretty > appealing idea to me, and it's really too bad that it has been shelved. If > there's something physically wrong with the LFS and someone has a better > idea, that's one thing, but otherwise I hope someone is able to resurrect > LFS soon... Well, from what I understand of LFS, it performs best as a 'write-only' filesystem. You aren't really supposed to be reading from an LFS, you should be reading from your memory cache. From that perspective, I heard one professor call a 64MB cache "small" for a LFS system. Although perhaps it might be suited for news, where most data just hits the disk and then expires without being read? -- Jonathan