> UFS/FFS is/are proven through time. Throw in the softupdates technology, > and you have the upside of journalling, without the downside of journalling. > No. I'm not going into details, first because I'm not qualified, and second, > others already have.
I think the bottom line to this whole thread is most folks out there
want a quick recovery (i.e., fast fsck's for large volumes).
I'm one of those folks who's gotten used to {XFS, JFS, EXT3, ReiserFS,
AdvFS, etc.}. Sure, journaling has it's issues (and I'm no expert), but
still having to wait for a fsck is a pain on large volumes, where as
waiting X number of seconds for a journal log replay is much easier to
contend with.
I've got a 891GB volume that's about 20% full, that takes 90 minutes or
so to fsck (and that's on a fiber channel, hardware RAID1+0 array). I'm
glad softupdates ensure the integrity of my data, but the wait is killer
in this production system :-)
> The one thing that journalling FSes deliver that FFS with softupdates doesn't
> right now is a 'fsck'less boot after an uncontrolled shutdown. I have read
> that the Project has this on their TODO list.
Yep... that's it exactly. I can't wait for 5.x (or fsck -B to be MFC'd
from -CURRENT :-)
Cheers,
Ryan
msg30255/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
