Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-13 Thread Terry Lambert
David Schultz wrote: > > I think softupdates is still (viewed as) riskier than synchronous > > writes, at least for large numbers of writes (like installworld) to a NB: An initial system install is done with async mounts. You can't use async mounts if you use soft updates, because the depende

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-13 Thread Terry Lambert
David Schultz wrote: > Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > In other words, if it would have worked with soft updates turned > > off, then it will work with soft updates turned on. > > My point was that a busy disk that is nearly 100% full will > probably experience intermitted ``disk

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-13 Thread Alfred Perlstein
This thread should be on -questions. As far as safe updating, one can always take a snapshot before installworld and restore from that if something goes awry. thank you, -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-13 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Darren Pilgrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > David Schultz wrote: > >Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>IMO, this is not the reason for them being off on /; the real > >>reason is as I've stated: sysinstall expects the common case to > >>be an initial install, not operations afte

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-13 Thread Darren Pilgrim
David Schultz wrote: Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: David Schultz wrote: The easy way to fix this is to insert a new dependency for the completion of the allocation. Basically, this would put in a stall barrier that would cause the outstanding I/O to drain before the new I/O wa

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-13 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > David Schultz wrote: > > > The easy way to fix this is to insert a new dependency for the > > > completion of the allocation. Basically, this would put in a > > > stall barrier that would cause the outstanding I/O to drain before > > > the new I/O wa

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-13 Thread Terry Lambert
David Schultz wrote: > > The easy way to fix this is to insert a new dependency for the > > completion of the allocation. Basically, this would put in a > > stall barrier that would cause the outstanding I/O to drain before > > the new I/O was attempted. All other operations behind the one > > th

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-13 Thread northern snowfall
Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken and egg problem of runing tunefs on /. If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default when partitioning for a new install? Oliver Stone said it was because there's a conspiracy. it's the downdraft fro

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > David Schultz wrote: > > > There's no chicken and egg problem when you're booting off install > > > media or for that matter from single user mode. The problem was that > > > softupdates means you don't get space back from deleted files immediatly >

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 06:41:56PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > northern snowfall wrote: > > Just FYI, IBM's JFS is GPL'd, IIRC, according 2 the WWW site for JFS. > > Hah, yay for acronyms. > > And the IBM JFS is actually the OS/2 JFS, not the AIX JFS. Or AIX JFS2 :) (In fact both AIX JFS2 (j2)

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Terry Lambert
David Schultz wrote: > > There's no chicken and egg problem when you're booting off install > > media or for that matter from single user mode. The problem was that > > softupdates means you don't get space back from deleted files immediatly > > so previously / tended to fillup during installworld

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Terry Lambert
Michael Sierchio wrote: > Darren Pilgrim wrote: > >> Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken > >> and egg problem of runing tunefs on /. > > > > If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default > > when partitioning for a new install? > > You can cert

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Randy Bush
>>> Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken >>> and egg problem of runing tunefs on /. >> If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default >> when partitioning for a new install? > Oliver Stone said it was because there's a conspiracy. it's the downdr

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Terry Lambert
Darren Pilgrim wrote: > Terry Lambert wrote: > > Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken > > and egg problem of runing tunefs on /. > > If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default > when partitioning for a new install? Oliver Stone said it was b

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 07:40:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Darren Pilgrim wrote: > > > Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no > > > writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem > > > t

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Brooks Davis
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 07:40:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Darren Pilgrim wrote: > > Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no > > writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem > > that journalling addresses, and is probably why softupda

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Michael Sierchio
Darren Pilgrim wrote: Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken and egg problem of runing tunefs on /. If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default when partitioning for a new install? You can certainly change the options in sysinstall to forc

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Darren Pilgrim
Terry Lambert wrote: Darren Pilgrim wrote: Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem that journalling addresses, and is probably why softupdates is disabled by default for /. For large, active

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Cliff Sarginson
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 07:40:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Darren Pilgrim wrote: > > Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no > > writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem > > that journalling addresses, and is probably why softupda

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Terry Lambert
Darren Pilgrim wrote: > Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no > writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem > that journalling addresses, and is probably why softupdates is disabled > by default for /. For large, active filesystems, jou

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Terry Lambert
northern snowfall wrote: > Just FYI, IBM's JFS is GPL'd, IIRC, according 2 the WWW site for JFS. > Hah, yay for acronyms. And the IBM JFS is actually the OS/2 JFS, not the AIX JFS. -- TRL To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the messa

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Darren Pilgrim
Matthew Emmerton wrote: Thus spake Daxbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The inspiration for this email was from a thread in -questions: "Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset" Is anybody currently working on or does there exist a JFS for FreeBSD? Various people (including myself and Hiten Pandy

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Matthew Emmerton
> Thus spake Daxbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The inspiration for this email was from a thread in > > -questions: "Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset" > > > > Is anybody currently working on or does there exist > > a JFS for FreeBSD? Various people (including myself and Hiten Pandya) have

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Daxbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The inspiration for this email was from a thread in > -questions: "Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset" > > Is anybody currently working on or does there exist > a JFS for FreeBSD? ... > Is there not a JFS for FreeBSD becuase, Softupdates > do the

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread northern snowfall
One with a license that will let it be distributed in the core. That lets out GPL'ed code, and I believe it lets out XFS as well, though I'm not positive on that. Just FYI, IBM's JFS is GPL'd, IIRC, according 2 the WWW site for JFS. Hah, yay for acronyms. http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/o

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Mike Meyer
In <045401c2d2db$f9d45c30$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daxbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > Is anybody currently working on or does there exist > a JFS for FreeBSD? To the best of my knowledge, there is no JFS, and nobody is working on one. > I've read in the archives, the discussion about > not really

Re: Why is there no JFS?

2003-02-12 Thread Kevin Golding
Someone, quite probably Daxbert, once wrote: >The inspiration for this email was from a thread in >-questions: "Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset" > >Is anybody currently working on or does there exist >a JFS for FreeBSD? Kevin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] To