Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:32:12 -0700
From: Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>
To: John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: soft update vs journaling?
Message-ID: <B78EFD916FFE8034EC546F38@dhcp-2-206.wgops.com>
In-Reply-To: <43D3295E.8040702@comcast.net>
References: <43D3295E.8040702@comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1097
Lines: 25


--On January 22, 2006 1:42:38 AM -0500 John Richard Moser 
<nigelenki@comcast.net> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> So I've been researching, because I thought this "Soft Update" thing
> that BSD uses was some weird freak-ass way to totally corrupt a file
> system if the power drops.  Seems I was wrong; it's actually just the
> opposite, an alternate solution to journaling.  So let's compare notes.

I hate to say it...but in my experience, this has been exactly the case 
with soft updates and FreeBSD 4 up to 4.11 pre releases.

Whenever something untoward would happen, the filesystem almost always lost 
files and/or data, usually just files though.  In practice it's never 
really worked too well for me.  It also still requires a full fsck on boot, 
which means long boot times for recovery on large filesystems.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/