Talk:Log-structured File System (BSD)

Untitled discussion

I am using LFS in NetBSD/alpha 3.0_BETA and it seem to be working again, I have used it for a few weeks to store mp3s and I have run a few bonnie++ tests and the filesystem seems to hold up fine. According to the CVS logs there has been a moderate amount of work on LFS in the last few months. --Jrash 10:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LFS is nearing production quality as the 4.0 release date approaches

This article needs to be updated. Recently (notably Jun-Sep 2006) there have been a lot of improvements in LFS stability. In the last few months, I have not had one LFS-related kernel panic. There are many people using LFS for whom the benefits (virtually instant fsck, excellent write performance) largely outweigh the drawbacks (occasional deadlocks, lack of coalescing in lfs_cleanerd, etc.). See http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/ufs/lfs/TODO for more information.

There still are plenty of outstanding issues, but LFS development is anything but stagnant! Please, try it out instead of dismissing it outright (as other BSD variants have done).

Contradiction

I added the {{contradict}} tag: This article claims that the file system was initially written for BSD, while the author's article, John Ousterhout, states that it was initially written for the Sprite operating system. -- intgr ^#%@! 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different LFS's. Looks like the Log-structured_file_system was originally about V's LFS, but has veered off course into an article about the general concept of an LFS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalPaterson (talk • contribs) 02:04, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see; makes sense. -- intgr ^#%@! 07:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]