Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:40:51 -0500 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: journaling UFS and LFS Message-ID: <19991102154051.35226@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <ybuogdehqkc.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net>; from Randell Jesup on Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:51:47AM %2B0000 References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910301936530.44134-100000@calis.blacksun.org> <ybuogdehqkc.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 1 November 1999 at 2:51:47 +0000, Randell Jesup wrote: > Don <don@calis.blacksun.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991102154051.35226>