Comments on: Background fsck vs. journaling

By: Poor Clueless Newbie

Poor Clueless Newbie — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:06:03 +0000

“Correct me if I am wrong I thought Matt wanted to port XFS from linux to Dragonfly that would be good”

Well, as long as the GPL doesn’t get all tangled up in the kernel, it’s okay. If he decides to merely use Linux’s as an example and basically writes his own XFS implementation from scratch, then that would be a very reasonable thing to do.

By: KjamC

KjamC — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:55:33 +0000

I hope they do journaling filesystem. Correct me if I am wrong I thought Matt wanted to port XFS from linux to Dragonfly that would be good. Couldn’t we have a choice after the first release to have a boot option between softupdates and journaling?

By: A.K.H.

A.K.H. — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:12:58 +0000

In the long run, it would be nice to have support for both UFS + softupdates as well as a journaling filesystem. I don’t really know the technical differences between journaling and softupdates all that well, but softupdates seems to be a very interesting system with good performance.

Can dragonfly mount a UFS/UFS2 filesystem that has softupdates in non-softupdates mode right now?

By: Mezz

Mezz — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:01:30 +0000

I have to agree with Matt about prefer to have a journaling filesystem. The background fsck is a little improvement only for UFS/SoftUpdate, but not always work great. I have managed lost over 3,000 emails like three or four times by Nvidia driver crash that the background fsck has never able to recovery them back.