Re: Question on FFS support

Brian Grayson (bgrayson@ibmoto.com)
Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:24:25 -0500


On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 04:31:55AM -0400, Anthony Barbachan wrote:
> > > included in the Linux kernel. I would have thought that with the need
> for a
> > > journaling filesystem FFS would have been adopted, especially with the
> BSD
> > > code available. Is there some issue that has prevented this?
> >
> > a) FFS is not journaling.
...
> > c) FFS under FreeBSD uses Kirk's softupdates. That's what you ar thinking
> > about.
>
> And softupdates is what gave me responder his quick fsck time? Ok I
> see. Thanks.
>
> > d) s-u is not fs-specific, at least between the FFS/UFS/EXT2

I don't know, but the original FreeBSD responder may have meant
LFS, the log-structured filesystem, which the BSDs have
recently revamped. It is a true journaling file system distinct
from FFS/UFS, and not merely soft-updates on top of a
traditional block-structured file system. With LFS, you always
append on writes, rather than overwrite. Thus, writes are
fast, and if the machine crashes, since the previous data has
not been overwritten, you can recover quite quickly. Of
course, with finite disks you need to do some
garbage-collecting, but LFS does all of that for you, and also
has some optimizations so that reads are still fast.

Cool concepts, since it is solving a different problem, like fast
transaction support, than traditional filesystems. There are a
bunch of filesystem papers on LFS by John Ousterhout, Margo
Seltzer, Keith Bostic, and Kirk McKusick that provide more
details -- look at the mount_lfs man page on any recent *BSD
system for the exact references.

Brian Grayson (a NetBSD fan in his spare time)
(Not speaking for Motorola, of course!)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/