Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 18:57:53 -0500 From: Dave Duchscher <daved@tamu.edu> To: Dave Uhring <duhring@charter.net> Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Oliver Fromme <olli@secnetix.de> Subject: Re: JFS Message-ID: <20010707185753.B27481@net.tamu.edu> In-Reply-To: <000d01c1074e$49d31ba0$0300a8c0@uhring.com>; from duhring@charter.net on Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 08:35:35PM -0500 References: <200107071638.SAA19610@lurza.secnetix.de> <01070711475500.00362@dave> <3B476285.43347BA1@nasby.net> <000d01c1074e$49d31ba0$0300a8c0@uhring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 08:35:35PM -0500, Dave Uhring wrote: > > 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. Just to bring up a point, Softupdates will also avoid the long fsck at boot. If I understand the papers I have read and with playing with Softupdates on current, Softupdates leaves files system in a consistent state so that the file-system can be mounted after a crash/lockup/etc immediately and only a background fsck need be run to free up left over pieces laying around. You guys also might want to wonder over to Kirk's Softupdates site: http://www.McKusick.com/softdep/index.html DaveD 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?20010707185753.B27481>