On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 04:16:07PM +0200, Pablo Mar?n Ram?n wrote: > > > * Improved performance > > there are known scenarios where it does degrades performance. > > I meant in the general case.
me too > > > * Faster recovery latency after a crash > > this is just not true at all. > > Effectively, background fsck isn't implemented yet under OpenBSD > and NetBSD (FreeBSD has this feature available since 5.x), but I > think it will be soon in OpenBSD: > > ---- > http://kerneltrap.org/node/6 > > JA: If you still have to run fsck, even with soft updates, why > wouldn't a journaling filesystem be welcome? > > Theo de Raadt: Because, as the paper shows, a journaling > filesystem is typically slower, and only really performs well on > multiple platters or using an nvram journal. That said, there are > changes coming which will make soft update filesystems be capable > of background fsck. As it is now, you can mount a soft update > filesystem after a crash, and it will work, but the block > allocation bitmaps may state that certain blocks > are in use, when they are not. So work has to happen to permit > background block cleanup. > ---- > > In my message I refered to the general ideas behind > softupdates more than to any actual implementation. general ideas do not matter. even in freebsd they are not implemented as defined. cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
