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

[Ted Unangst <tedu@zeitbombe.org>]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Hannah Schroeter wrote:

> 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,

there is a very specific file system called LFS.  all data goes into the 
log, using segments.  it's also write-once, which brings in the cleaner, 
which is where lots of problems are/were.  fsync requires writing a 
partial segment, which blows chunks.  there are a number of usenix papers 
from the early 90s about LFS to read for details.


-- 
we used to hate people
now we just make fun of them
it's more effective that way