Re: UFS filesystem size limit

[Hiten Pandya <hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
>
> > As far as recovery after a crash is involved, clearly nothing beats 
> > journalling, and i have to say that performancewise, i have the 
> > impression that Linux journalled filesystems do *very* well
> > compared to FreeBSD, or at least reiserfs shines when managing a lot of 
> > small files like a news spool and xfs for streaming large files, when
> > BSD UFS performs well in the medium case.
>
>
> Don't compare experimental filesystems with UFS :-) But seriously, the
> structure of JFS and XFS is very different from UFS, e.g. the use of
> btrees for almost anything. That makes them more suitable for some
> operations, but horrible for others. It depends on how big your
> directories are, how big your files are and all that. There is no
> perfect filesystem after all. As you said, the nice thing about UFS is
> that it performs well in all cases.
>
> Joerg

Umm.  UFS performs well in all cases is a relative statement.  According 
to todays standards in the commercial environments for data recovery after 
crash, it does not do that well.

As I was saying, once Matt and I are *thorough* with the BUF/BIO system 
and finishing journaling, we will have a lot more to say about this, in 
terms of practicality.

					-Hiten