From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jul 7 13:35:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from dc-mx07.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx07.cluster0.hsacorp.net [209.225.8.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150DE37B401 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:35:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from duhring@charter.net) Received: from [24.217.157.157] (HELO dave) by dc-mx07.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.6) with SMTP id 11253799; Sat, 07 Jul 2001 16:42:38 -0400 Message-ID: <000d01c1074e$49d31ba0$0300a8c0@uhring.com> From: "Dave Uhring" To: "Jim C. Nasby" Cc: , "Oliver Fromme" References: <200107071638.SAA19610@lurza.secnetix.de> <01070711475500.00362@dave> <3B476285.43347BA1@nasby.net> Subject: Re: JFS Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:35:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: "Dave Uhring" Cc: ; "Oliver Fromme" Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 2:27 PM Subject: Re: JFS > That article does a good job describing RFS and contrasting it to > ext2fs, but it leaves several questions left un-answered in relation to > ufs. > > RFS might be faster or more stable than ufs, but there's no way to > assume that based on it's superiority to ext2fs, since ufs is also far > superior to ext2fs (I'm assuming ufs with softupdates turned on here). > > The ability to store data within the b-tree seems to be a valuable > feature. In fact, using a b-tree instead of other forms of metadata > storage is very interesting; it's similar to how most database engines > impliment indexes. > > I'm not so convinced that a journal is the greatest thing in the world, > though. I think it makes much more sense to do what softupdates do.... > perform updates to the filesystem atomically and in a manner where the > metadata is always written first. > > My $0.02, > dB! > > Dave Uhring wrote: > > > > On Saturday 07 July 2001 11:38, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > A. L. Meyers wrote: > > > > Just installed SuSE Linux 7.2 with Reiser FS throughout on an > > > > Intel SMP box. The FS purrs, even on /, which doesn't mean > > > > everything is better or worse than FBSD. > > > > > > > > As far as I know, ReiserFS is GPL. What would porting it to > > > > FreeBSD be better or worse than other (newer and less stable) > > > > alternatives? > > > > > > Maybe a dumb question, but ... > > > > > > In what way is ReiserFS so much better than UFS + Soft- > > > updates + background fsck, that it would justify the > > > efforts of porting ReiseFS to FreeBSD? > > > > > > Just wondering. > > > > > > Regards > > > Oliver > > You seem to have missed the critical point of that paper. When the system goes completely haywire and either crashes or locks up so hard that a manual reset is required, UFS/softupdates requires a substantial amount of time to run fsck. If you have a very large filesystem, you then have to w....a....i....t until fsck completes. And if you are lucky, it will not terminate with the suggestion that you run fsck by hand. With a true journalling filesystem this wait is obviated. The last transactions are rerun or truncated and the system boots up. I use "logging" on Solaris and XFS on Linux and have tried reiserfs on Linux. All are superior to UFS/softupdates when the going gets tough. Disk access times may or may not be comparable with UFS/softupdates, but the integrity of my filesystems is more important than raw speed. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message