From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 13 06:31:59 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA19266 for current-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA19261 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:31:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id IAA23176; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:31:16 -0600 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199611131431.IAA23176@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Subject: Re: ufs is too slow? To: hgoldste@bbs.mpcs.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:31:16 -0600 (CST) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, terry@lambert.org In-Reply-To: <199611131410.JAA30752@bbs.mpcs.com> from "Howard Goldstein" at Nov 13, 96 09:10:59 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > In article <199611120120.SAA19129@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert wrote: > : Again, news articles are created, written only once, and not updated; > : there's really no reason to get more complex on a "newsfs" than doing > : what you can to speed up indexing, etc.. And that can be just as easily > : laid on *top* of *any* FS -- after all, the indices won't change > : significantly either, if they have correct organizing principles, since > : the data they refer to is invariant until expiration or creation. > > The only catch is with regard to overview files, one per newsgroup, to > which per-article header data are appended. Whether or not it's a > large catch in the discussion about what I call an "expfs", an > expendable filesystem with a care-less (careless) attitude towards > integrity, I do not know. Who is saying that you need to use the same type of filesystem to store the overview files? I see no reason to switch from FFS for those, or for /usr/local, /var, etc. ... JG