Re: JFS
Juha Saarinen wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Bill Moran wrote: > > > I know my opinion of Wind River has been negatively impacted by > > the numerous spelling errors I found on their web site the first > > time I visited. > > That's different though -- one person rubbishes the product because the > presentation uses a Politically Incorrect typeface, whereas you (quite > rightly) assume that if they can't be bothered to run a spelling checker > over their Web page, their quality control is somewhat suspect... True, as I pointed out later in my previous post: "On the flip side, the Sistina page displays well even though I don't have that font, so _I_ wasn't put off by it." -Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Bill Moran wrote: > I know my opinion of Wind River has been negatively impacted by > the numerous spelling errors I found on their web site the first > time I visited. That's different though -- one person rubbishes the product because the presentation uses a Politically Incorrect typeface, whereas you (quite rightly) assume that if they can't be bothered to run a spelling checker over their Web page, their quality control is somewhat suspect... -- Regards, Juha PGP fingerprint: B7E1 CC52 5FCA 9756 B502 10C8 4CD8 B066 12F3 9544 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
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. Background fsck is now working in -current, which means that when your system boots you don't have to fsck the disk immediately. It seems to work just fine for me so far. > If you have a very large filesystem, you > then have to wait until fsck completes. I believe that giving the right options to newfs can significantly reduce fsck times too. There's notes on it in the new tuning man page. > 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. AFAIK Softupdates shouldn't be any less carefull with your data than journaling, providing the application calls fsync. One advantage might be that data is written to the disk twice, which means if one bit of the disk goes bad you might be able to find it elsewhere. (Mind you, I guess RAID is the right way to do that sort of thing.) I dunno which is harder to impliment right - journaling or softupdates. This may actually be the issue which determines the safety of your data. David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Dave Uhring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I just took a look at www.sistina.com and a web site which has its font > > set to Arial is suspect, IMHO. If they have to use Microsoft products > > to produce a web site.. > > Is that the best you could come up with? I mean, you could criticize > the ingenuity of their designs, or the quality of their code, or their > ability to deliver on their promises - or would that require too much > effort? It's so much easier to just dismiss them out of hand because > they use a font you don't like on their web page, isn't it? Generally, this is what most people do. I'm not defending Dave, or supporting DES. But many people judge a company by such first appearances. I know people who will dismiss a company as amatuer by the quality of their product packaging. I know my opinion of Wind River has been negatively impacted by the numerous spelling errors I found on their web site the first time I visited. Web pages that only display in M$ browsers also make me feel uncomfortable with a company. and _assuming_ that everyone will have a font just because it comes with Windows falls into that category. On the flip side, the Sistina page displays well even though I don't have that font, so _I_ wasn't put off by it. Other aspects of the page design made me decide not to read further into it, however. (primarily the diffucult-to-read blue on black text on the nav column) -Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
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 wait 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS (was: The FreeBSD core team needs your help)
> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 14:50:21 +0200 (CEST) > From: "A. L. Meyers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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? > > Is this a technical issue or are politics involved? AFAIK ReiserFS is a work in progress. There are some other established journaling FS's out there which might be candidates, ie the IBM one and one from SGI. -- Philip J. Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] Electric Kahuna Systems -- Computers & Communications for the New Millenium To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
Juha Saarinen wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Dave Uhring wrote: > > > 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. > > Hmmm... that's one reason I've not implemented ReiserFS on my Linux box. > Read too many horror stories about how it eats your file system, and how > it doesn't work with NFS etc. Absolutely false. Works perfectly... I have had it on several machines for about a year with absolutely no problems .. nada. On the other hand UFS/softupdates is pretty reliable itself albiet a little pokier. I haven't seen fsck in action for so long I almost forgot it existed. Reiserfs would be nice on FreeBSD though. IBM's JFS might be even better. -- Ted Sikora [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.unixos2.org http://www.powerusersbbs.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
- Original Message - From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 4:04 PM Subject: Re: JFS > 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 wait 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 > As I indicated, my experience with ReiserFS is limited. I have been using SGI's XFS for Linux for a short time and am quite pleased with its performance and filesystem integrity. If you have a spare system available, it's easy enough to try it out. http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/1.0_installer.html Also requires the 2 install CDs for RedHat-7.1. SGI's ftp site has a patch available to bring up XFS on Linux-2.4.5 kernel, also. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Dave Uhring wrote: > 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. Hmmm... that's one reason I've not implemented ReiserFS on my Linux box. Read too many horror stories about how it eats your file system, and how it doesn't work with NFS etc. -- Regards, Juha PGP fingerprint: B7E1 CC52 5FCA 9756 B502 10C8 4CD8 B066 12F3 9544 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
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 wait 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
RE: JFS
Hi again! I'd like to see continuing cooperation amoung the various more or less open source Unixes and their clones. If anyone is capable and competent to port ReiserFS to FreeBSD, it would be Hans Reiser himself and his friends. Which is not at all stating or implying that UFS is not a very good FS. But what Robert says is simply a statement of fact. Experiencing one-on how quickly a JFS (e. g. Reiser) recovers is really impressive. Good night. Lucien To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS (was: The FreeBSD core team needs your help)
On Wednesday, 4 July 2001 at 11:38:08 +0100, Antony T Curtis wrote: > Greg Lehey wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 12 June 2001 at 19:22:45 +0200, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:09:58 +0100 >>> Josef Karthauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:32:23AM -0700, Eric Parusel wrote: >>> A journalling FS for those people who just hate waiting for a > couple >>> of >>> TB of slow disks to fsck? >> >> Does ReiserFS work with FreeBSD? > >> From what I've read, XFS is quite good as well (Whether or not it > could ever work with *BSD, I don't know) Apparently XFS would run better on FreeBSD than on Linux, from what >>> >>> Whatever happened to the open source release of JFS, or is JFS really >>> bad ? >> >> The open source version of JFS was based on OS/2, not AIX. It's not >> an overly good fit to UNIX. > > That was only because AIX's JFS implementation was so closely bound into > their kernel that there was no easy way to "port" it out of it. Also, > AFAIK, it was written in a mesh of different languages too, including > POWER architecture assembly. > > The OS/2 version was the first clean implementation to plug into OS/2's > IFS driver model - and being written in C, it is much more 'portable'. > (AFAIK, it was supposed to be able to be recompiled for OS/2 for CHRP > PowerPC) Since writing that (quite some time ago, IIRC) I have joined IBM and am now working with the people who did the JFS port. They substantially confirm your viewpoint, with the added information that the "old" JFS, now called JFS 1, is being phased out under AIX, and the "new" AIX JFS, JFS 2, is based on the same code base as the OS/2 port. With that background, IBM's approach makes a lot more sense. It's a pity that this issue wasn't clarified earlier. > All said, I would be interested in a JFS port for FreeBSD I'm going to be doing a lot of work on JFS in the next few months. I don't think I'll port it to FreeBSD, but I'll be available for questions, and I'll have a better understanding. >> unix soit qui mal y pense You're aware that the original word of this phrase, "hon(n)i", means "ashamed"? Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
RE: More than just logging, Re: JFS
> Why logging filesystems don't work: > > You generally (with the hardware available in PCs now) > can't tell the difference between: > > 1) loss of power (ok!) > 2) crash where the filesystem datastructures weren't corrupted (ok!) > 3) crash where the filesystem datastructures were corrupted (ouch) > 4) crash where the disk/bus got scrambled (ouch) Nice analysis. I have a vague memory (I can't seem to find the message in the archives) of somebody on -current talking about a proposal for a log device that emitted events from the filesystem. Something like that and a WORM might make a reliable logging filesystem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: More than just logging, Re: JFS
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Bad news: people running depending on _only_ logging are kidding themselves. Yeah. Funny how they have been doing so without getting bitten, eh? -- Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
Cy Schubert wrote: > > > > Due to the lack of interest, FreeBSD's LFS has fallen into disrepair > > > over the years. With the implementation of softupdates in FreeBSD I > > > don't think there is any need for LFS any more. > > > > Repeat that over and over the next time you wait fsck finish a 40 Gb > > filesystem checkup, and see if you manage to convince yourself of that. > > Read the CVS logs and tell me how you could interpret the comments any > differently: > > 1.21 Fri Jan 30 11:33:40 1998 UTC by phk > CVS Tags: HEAD > Diffs to 1.20 > FILE REMOVED > > Retire LFS. > > If you want to play with it, you can find the final version of the > code in the repository the tag LFS_RETIREMENT. > > If somebody makes LFS work again, adding it back is certainly > desireable, but as it is now nobody seems to care much about it, > and it has suffered considerable bitrot since its somewhat haphazard > integration. > > R.I.P > > Obviously you don't know what you're talking about either. Do you? I do know. The main reason why LFS was never updated isn't that it was made obsolete by softupdates, as claimed above, but that it was made obsolete by JFS. Why work on LFS if it is not up to a JFS? Unfortunately, the people who have to suffer enourmous waits after crashes usually have way more to do, even if they have the skills to fix LFS. With the disks getting bigger and bigger, this is due to change. BTW, NetBSD is happy with _their_ _functional_ LFS. -- Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: JFS
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: > Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote: > > > > 4.4BSD has something like JFS, LFS (Log Structured Filesystem). LFS > > developed from a paper by John Ousterhout, the same fellow who > > developed Tcl & Tk. All other log structured filesystems, JFS, AdvFS, > > Veritas Filesystem, are based on Ousterhout's work. > > A journalled structured filesystem is NOT a log structured filesystem. I stand corrected on this point. > > > Due to the lack of interest, FreeBSD's LFS has fallen into disrepair > > over the years. With the implementation of softupdates in FreeBSD I > > don't think there is any need for LFS any more. > > Repeat that over and over the next time you wait fsck finish a 40 Gb > filesystem checkup, and see if you manage to convince yourself of that. Read the CVS logs and tell me how you could interpret the comments any differently: 1.21 Fri Jan 30 11:33:40 1998 UTC by phk CVS Tags: HEAD Diffs to 1.20 FILE REMOVED Retire LFS. If you want to play with it, you can find the final version of the code in the repository the tag LFS_RETIREMENT. If somebody makes LFS work again, adding it back is certainly desireable, but as it is now nobody seems to care much about it, and it has suffered considerable bitrot since its somewhat haphazard integration. R.I.P Obviously you don't know what you're talking about either. Do you? Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Sun/DEC Team, UNIX GroupInternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ITSD Province of BC "COBOL IS A WASTE OF CARDS." To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
More than just logging, Re: JFS
* Gary Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000130 22:55] wrote: > Tom wrote in message ID > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > > > > > > Due to the lack of interest, FreeBSD's LFS has fallen into disrepair > > > > over the years. With the implementation of softupdates in FreeBSD I > > > > don't think there is any need for LFS any more. > > > > > > Repeat that over and over the next time you wait fsck finish a 40 Gb > > > filesystem checkup, and see if you manage to convince yourself of that. > > > > Actually, one of the goals of the softupdates development is a fsck'less > > filesystem. I'm not sure how this is to be achieved. Probably a metadata > > journal, though that is just speculation. All the work on metadata update > > ordering in softupdates would probably apply very nicely to a journal. > > The way I understand it is that SoftUpdates is meant to leave the > metadata consistant enough that the filesystem can be mounted > read/write immediately at boot, and then have a background fsck go > through and remove blocks which are allocated in the bitmaps, but > aren't really used. The only thing you lose by not running the > background daemon is space. I don't think anyone's running like this > today, but that is Kirks plan. (This is me (hopefully accurately) repeating something that Terry Lambert brought to my attention, credit where credit is due. The safe-shutdown is my rambling on about a solution.) Why logging filesystems don't work: You generally (with the hardware available in PCs now) can't tell the difference between: 1) loss of power (ok!) 2) crash where the filesystem datastructures weren't corrupted (ok!) 3) crash where the filesystem datastructures were corrupted (ouch) 4) crash where the disk/bus got scrambled (ouch) the problems with 3 and 4 really make a logging filesystem a "shot in the dark" because you never know if "safe" areas on the disk really are safe because there was a chance for corruption. How do you know that a bug in some other code didn't trounce on the filesystem's data and write to a spot that's supposedly "committed"? Since you generally can't tell between 1,2,3 and 4 you really ought to fsck in the background anyway. Good news: afaik Kirk is working on this capability! Bad news: people running depending on _only_ logging are kidding themselves. Mini-fix for this problem: Providing safe shutdown points for the filesystem, if something "weird" is found, disable further access to that file/directory or possibly shutdown the entire filesystem. Basically instead of panic'ing when invalid structures are read from disk, just disallow further access to the objects. patches anyone? :) -- -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message