On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Dan Naumov wrote: > > UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast. > Yes, UFS2+SoftUpdates is very fast, however, in the case of a power > loss or having to pull the plug on a locked up system, it has a > noticeably higher chance of leaving you with an unbootable system than > if you were using Linux with ext3/ext4 or Windows with NTFS. Can you back this up? I cannot recall having ever rendered a FreeBSD system unbootable due to UFS/UFS2 problems after a power failure or crash. I once had a problem with snapshots that made background fsck fail and crash the system, but it was fixable by booting single user and running fsck manually. This was a couple of years ago, and I think the problem has since been fixed. ZFS at least probably is not able to replace UFS2 for everyone, at this time, anyway. Perhaps gjournal can be a replacement for softupdates for many people who do still need UFS2, but I'm not sure. I think in any case, any existing bugs that cause UFS2+softupdates to catastrophically fail in the event of power failures or system crashes need to be fixed. Making it easier for users to install a system with ZFS or gjournal does nothing for those who have existing systems with UFS2+softupdates, and those who cannot use ZFS or gjournal in the near future for whatever reason. That being said, I do agree that being able to support ZFS and gjournal in sysinstall or an alternative installer would be great. NickReceived on Tue Jun 09 2009 - 15:21:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:49 UTC