Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:39:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@looksharp.net> To: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.org>, <grog@FreeBSD.org>, <phk@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD) Message-ID: <20011214141902.F69086-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> In-Reply-To: <a05101013b83fd20c4206@[10.0.1.22]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Brad Knowles wrote: > I still don't understand why JFS has any interest over >softupdates. Indeed, the papers I've read seem to indicate that, at >best, JFS may approach the kind of speed possible with softupdates, >and they both allow you to re/boot quickly and with mount times that >do not include lengthy fsck. The major advantage people see to a journaling file system is that of the lack of fsck on boot. This is crucial to large filesystems. Perhaps when Softupdates on FFS gets to the point where snapshots and background fsck are fully implemented and well tested and maybe even enabled by default then people will stop asking for a journaling file system. I don't know very much about JFS, but I do know that the design of XFS offers some cool features like dynamic inode creation. One would also think the ability to possibly relink rm'd files by rolling back journal transactions would be a potentially useful feature on a filesystem being used on the average user's desk. There are lots of cool things you can do with a journal. Brandon D. Valentine -- "Iam mens praetrepidans avet vagari." - G. Valerius Catullus, Carmina, XLVI To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011214141902.F69086-100000>