"Native" journaling file systems?
matthias.andree at gmx.de
Mon Dec 19 13:37:51 PST 2005
Eric Anderson <anderson at centtech.com> writes:
> Justin Smith wrote:
>>Are there any plans to develop UFS3--- i.e., a UFS2 file system with an
>>I've used several journaling file systems in Linux and like the Reiser
>>FS except for one MAJOR drawback: When something goes wrong, reiser-fsck
>>absolutely sucks at repairing things (Hans Reiser freely admits that but
>>says it's never needed because nothing ever goes wrong).
>>Businesses that use the reiser file system have to buy expensive
>>commercial products for fixing it (there are at least two on the market).
>>Ext3 works well and one always has the standard fsck to fall back on if
>>something goes wrong. One can also easily convert an existing Ext2 file
>>system to Ext3.
>>After a crash, replaying the journal only takes a second or two.
>>A UFS3 might have the same desirable features.
> XFS is typically considered a better filesystem than ext*fs's,
extfs is dead, but I'd be interested to see this backed by independent
sources. One thing I find lacking in XFS is the "data=ordered" mode of
> As far as a native journaling fs for FreeBSD, Scott Long and a SoC
> developer started work on a jUFS, but I'm not certain as to the status.
> I too am very anxious for it, and would like to play with the code as it
> is so far, but I can't seem to easily check it out of perforce (no
> login, of course).
> Maybe Scott can give us a quick update?
What has become of lfs by the way?
More information about the freebsd-current