On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 12:26:25PM -0700, Bob Miller wrote: > > Compared to ext2, UFS is dog slow, but better at recovering from power > failures and other crashes. (Ext2 takes more chances on metadata > updates. Saves time, but might not recover.) It is not journaled, so > you still have to run fsck. > > OTOH, ext2 has not lost any of my files yet. ReiserFS will, once it's > stable*, give the performance of ext2 with the reliability of journaling. > Softupdate is now /recommended/ in OpenBSD. According to http://www.openbsd.org/29.html, "some tests show a 60x improvement in filesystem speed". I haven't noticed it to be 60x faster, but I did notice 'make build' takes about 30-40% less time. Compiling, at least for me, is where I've noticed the biggest differences. Tar is a heck of a lot quicker also. It seems pretty reliable. I set up a CVS repo on my server, and was updating my workbox over ssh. I should have been "nice". Anyway, the server crashed. The only partition that needed fsck was /tmp. cfs is also in the ports tree, but I hear it's not very complete at the moment. Aparently, the NetBSD folks are working on cfs with some enthusiasm, so ... <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
