Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:28:19 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Ataualpa Albert Carmo Braga <atabraga@iqm.unicamp.br> Subject: Re: JFS Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10001310923330.3045-100000@shell.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <3895A96A.8ABB0B53@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > I do know. The main reason why LFS was never updated isn't that it was > made obsolete by softupdates, as claimed above, but that it was made > obsolete by JFS. Why work on LFS if it is not up to a JFS? Well, a log structured file system has some interesting performance characteristics. It is also rather a curiosity too, as there are so few implementations. I understand that the WAFL filesystem is basically log structured. > Unfortunately, the people who have to suffer enourmous waits after > crashes usually have way more to do, even if they have the skills to fix > LFS. > > With the disks getting bigger and bigger, this is due to change. > > BTW, NetBSD is happy with _their_ _functional_ LFS. Maybe somebody should import it. I was kind of disappointed to learn that the U in NetBSD UVM doesn't stand for unified, and that NetBSD still doesn't have a unified VM. This pretty much kills any advantage NetBSD could have these days. > -- > Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) > dcs@newsguy.com > dcs@freebsd.org > > "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10001310923330.3045-100000>