[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: soft update vs journaling?
    El Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:31:44 -0500,
    Theodore Ts'o <> escribió:

    > One major downside with Soft Updates that you haven't mentioned in
    > your note, is that the amount of complexity it adds to the filesystem
    > is tremendous; the filesystem has to keep track of a very complex
    > state machinery, with knowledge of about the ordering constraints of
    > each change to the filesystem and how to "back out" parts of the
    > change when that becomes necessary.

    And FreeBSD is implementing journaling for UFS and getting rid of
    softupdates [1]. While this not proves that softupdates is "a bad idea",
    i think this proves why the added sofupdates complexity doesn't seem
    to pay off in the real world.


    "4. Journaled filesystem. While we can debate the merits of speed and
    data integrety of journalling vs. softupdates, the simple fact remains
    that softupdates still requires a fsck run on recovery, and the
    multi-terabyte filesystems that are possible these days make fsck a very
    long and unpleasant experience, even with bg-fsck. There was work at
    some point at RPI to add journaling to UFS, but there hasn't been much
    status on that in a long time. There have also been proposals and
    works-in-progress to port JFS, ReiserFS, and XFS. Some of these efforts
    are still alive, but they need to be seen through to completion"
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-01-22 20:53    [W:0.028 / U:3.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site