* De: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> [ Data: 2003-02-10 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs Makefile mkfs.c newfs.c newfs.h ref.test ]
> Juli Mallett wrote:
> > jmallett 2003/02/10 19:06:46 PST
> >
> > Modified files:
> > sbin/newfs Makefile mkfs.c newfs.c newfs.h ref.test
> > Log:
> > Convert newfs to libufs (really). Solves one real issue with previous
> > version of such. Differences in filesystems generated were found to be
> > from 1) sbwrite with the "all" parameter 2) removal of writecache. The
> > sbwrite call was made to perform as the original version, and otherwise
> > this was checked against a version of newfs with the write cache removed.
>
> Umm, I object! This is a massive performance loss on disks without track
> write buffering (eg: many raid systems).. While it isn't so bad for ufs2
> newfs, it is a Big Deal for ufs1 for interchangeability.
OK. I was kind of hoping to put a general write cache (and since we do
reads, a general buffer cache, in a sense) into libufs, but I suppose I
could just put back the wc stuff, and avoid calling into libufs for anything
other than bread/bwrite.
Which would you prefer? Do you know of anything other than newfs where it
matters?
Thanx,
juli.
--
Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>
AIM: BSDFlata -- IRC: juli on EFnet
OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer
ircd-hybrid Developer, EFnet addict
FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-src" in the body of the message