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. Actually ... according to the article, the system boots up and _then_ determines what needs done to repair the filesystem. Also, the lack of a need for fscking is not the only benefit of RieserFS. In fact, it's a _minor_ improvement. If your system is going down so often that the speed of a fsck is a major factor in the layout of the system, you've got other issues you need to address first! The other issues that might make Reiserfs a good idea (and a possible improvement over UFS) are the various improvements such as small file storage and large directory storage. I know that I'm interested in seeing performance comparisons with regard to these factors, and so far, I've seen none that compare ReiserFS to UFS/softupdates. My $.02 -Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
