On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:03:38PM -0500, David Rhodus wrote:
> Soft updates and journaling are not the same thing.
I know and I didn't say that. But soft updates allow a non-journaled
filesystem to be implemented with much less things to worry about.
E.g. NetBSD has support for ext2 uses the soft update code.
Even in a journaled filesystem, the general concept can be used to
keep track of what has to be journaled and what not.
> I haven't done
> any testing yet but I don't think FFS would perform as a very good
> modern filesystem if we remove soft updates without changing the
> behaviour of the filesystem.
The performance of FFS without soft updates [read sync mounted] would
be abysmal for stuff like cvs update. I don't consider async mount
valid for anything but mfs. Linux user tend to disagree on that.
Joerg