From owner-freebsd-fs Tue Nov 2 13:45:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mojave.sitaranetworks.com (mojave.sitaranetworks.com [199.103.141.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3300814D37 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:45:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@lemis.com) Message-ID: <19991102154051.35226@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:40:51 -0500 From: Greg Lehey To: Randell Jesup , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: journaling UFS and LFS Reply-To: Greg Lehey References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Randell Jesup on Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:51:47AM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Monday, 1 November 1999 at 2:51:47 +0000, Randell Jesup wrote: > Don writes: >>> Most corporate IT managers wouldn't know a filesystem if they were >>> bitten by one. >> That is absolutely the case. That is why I can not suggest that >> softupdates is as good as a journaled file system. The people I deal with >> at least know the buzzword and they want to make sure that whatever >> solution they go with will have it. > > Question: is the fsck time for softupdates the same as for > plain UFS (when it needs to fsck, which should be (much) less often, > if I remember correctly). My understanding is that the fsck is identical. The only advantage that soft updates brings is that the danger of damage is much less. > Even the occasional long-fsck-time can be a problem for a > high-availability production environment. Agreed. This is the biggest advantage of a log-based fs. > Side question: why is it that there are certain errors (inode out > of range, for example) that fsck barfs on and exits? Because it's broken. We should be able to recognize and fix all these problems. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message