Journaling softupdates, SU+J

DutchDaemon

DutchDaemon

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Developer
&quot said:
BSD's ffs, an extension of the original unix filesystem, has used an alternate approach called soft-updates to handle filesystem consistency for around 10 years. For the past few months, I have been creating a hybrid journaled softupdate system to deal with inadequacies in the existing softdep system. This work is opensource and will be available to FreeBSD-current users sometime this month.
Click to expand...
http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/22716.html
 
gjorunal effectively gets you rid of bgfsck too.
 
danger@ said:
gjorunal effectively gets you rid of bgfsck too.
Click to expand...

That's true, but it has a lousy performance and it's rather unstable as you can see several times on freebsd-fs/-stable/-questions.
 
I was using gm0 as a backup target, but as a
newbie having tons of issues (non verbose errors).
Only with a bios-based disk re-partitioner I think
I eradicated the gm0 (then, I replaced it with gjournal.)
The latter has so far been sailing merrily along with the
bwlimit parameter to rsync to make the target 1/10 the
rate of the disk reads at the source, not overloading
either the sata-on-pci controller or the fs or the
drive firmware at the
target, whichever was hosing the ufs2 filesystems
at the target,
without the parameter.

Hope that trivia is not off topic.
 
To cut it short...
When will it be backported, to THE 8?
Will it be in 8.1 RELEASE or perhaps 8.2 RELEASE?
 
It's been in HEAD for, what? Two days? And you're already discussing a possible MFC date? Wake up people. SUJ isn't production ready and needs to go through many iterations of testing. I seriously doubt an MFC before 8.1.
 
joel@,
I want test this future but I don't want migrate to CURRENT. If it back compatible with UFS SU, why not?
 
QuAzI said:
joel@,
I want test this future but I don't want migrate to CURRENT. If it back compatible with UFS SU, why not?
Click to expand...

Because it isn't production ready. That means that it may be stable. I do not expect to see unstable stuff in a release version of FreeBSD. I think most people want to see FreeBSD be a stable platform, that is one of its greatest values, not the enourmous featureset.
 
Patience, young grasshopper, patience. :) All good things come to those who wait.

If you want to help test it, then you need to run -CURRENT on a system, even in a VM. Otherwise, you have to wait for others to test it and get it into shape, so that it can be MFC'd to a -STABLE version, and then into a -RELEASE.

This is the way of the FreeBSD. :)
 
Jeff Roberson has stated that he has had 8-STABLE patches in the past, so track the mailing lists to see if he posts an updated patch for you to apply manually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top