Re: gjournal patch

[Charles Sprickman]

Václav Haisman wrote:



Hi,
yesterday, I tried to build kernel and world with the gjournal patch. It
does not apply cleanly. This brings me to question, are there some
outstanding issues that prevent it from being commited to RELENG_6? I
tried to search ml archives but I did not find any.


This is slightly OT, but I was looking at the AsiaBSDCon site yesterday 
and I saw this:


http://asiabsdcon.org/timetable.html#P11

"This paper introduces Bluffs, a journaling file system that is mostly 
compatible with the Fast File System (FFS) on disk structure. The FFS has 
been successfully used for a long time. However increased disk capacities 
have made the classic crash recovery using a file system checker (fsck) a 
prohibitively time expensive operation. Soft Updates [4] and background 
fsck were introduced to combat the problem but added code complexity to 
FFS. Bluffs goal is to replace FFS by providing the same functionality as 
FFS with better error recovery and a fresh simple code structure. Allowing 
bidirectional migration of file systems between FFS and Bluffs format 
should make transitioning easier, provides file system checker tools to 
Bluffs and allows booting with the standard bootstrap loaders."


This is the first I've heard of this.  It seems to be coming from Yahoo!.

Anyone else know anything about this project?

Thanks,

Charles


--
Vaclav Haisman___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: gjournal patch

[Vince]

Václav Haisman wrote:
> Hi,
> yesterday, I tried to build kernel and world with the gjournal patch. It
> does not apply cleanly. This brings me to question, are there some
> outstanding issues that prevent it from being commited to RELENG_6? I
> tried to search ml archives but I did not find any.
> 
> --
> Vaclav Haisman
> 
> 
> 
I run it on a 6.2-release server, no problems as yet but its only been a
month. The original ptach broke back in november see
[http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2006-November/030803.html]

However because of
[http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/sys/vnode.h.diff?r1=1.304.2.7&r2=1.304.2.8&f=h]

This doesnt quite apply cleanly but very close to and its easy to
manually do the minor diff manually

basically add the line
#define   VV_DELETED  0x0400  /*  should  be removed */

After
#define   VV_MD   0x0800  /* vnode backs the md device */

No other issues I'm aware of but i'm not following -STABLE on that box
any more.

Vince
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"