> On Aug 22, 2025, at 9:09 PM, Konrad Schroder <[email protected]> wrote: > > (If we didn't care at all about compatibility, we could improve things > further by putting the entire inode into the ifile rather than just a pointer > to the inode block, as suggested long ago by joff@. This would make the > ifile quite a bit larger and less likely to fit in the buffer cache, but > would keep empty inode blocks from contributing to the cleaning inefficiency > problem. It would also make file reads slower in many cases since the inodes > would not be physically close to where the file data blocks are. If the disk > has no seek penalty, of course, this might not be a problem at all.)
My hot take is that NetBSD embarking on a project to make an SSD-optimized LFS file system production-ready would be super cool. -- thorpej
