Re: LFS (was: New FSs in 3.4?)

[Claus Assmann <ca+OpenBSD_misc@zardoc.endmail.org>]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003, Hannah Schroeter wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:50:21AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote:

> >Just a data point: using JFS on Linux sendmail 9 can relay more
> >than 100 msg/s, while a conventional FFS can only achieve 30 msg/s.
> 
> I thought that the great difference between JFSs (in general) and
> LFSs (in general) is that LFSs are *only* the log, while JFSs are
> a log plus more traditional structures. So a *full* fsync() would
> be an append to the log on a LFS, while it'd be an append to the log,
> then an update in the other structures on a JFS. Of course, you

[...]

That's why I would like to have an LFS for testing to see
what kind of throughput it gives.

Maybe I try to install NetBSD on a test machine.

PS: AFAIK some of the journalling FS on Linux can also "log" the
data. Since mail relaying means the files are created and deleted
within a short period of time this might be optimized just to log
the changes instead of actually writing the data to a "conventional"
file.