Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Dec 2005 23:44 UTC, submitted by Lazarus
Permalink for comment 75018
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
---
Still, I'd really like to see a new FS option for a BSD. I was kind of hoping for HFS+, myself, but ZFS seems neat, too. UFS/FFS is old, slow, and very difficult to deal with on large filesystems (fscking a large partition takes a loooong time....I've seen 140GB take nearly two hours). UFS2+softupdates still isn't data-safe (since it essentially requires async operation), and doesn't improve performance. 1TB+ filesystems. woohoo. How long have other filesystems supported that?
http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html
[quote]
Linux is well known for its reliability. Servers often stay up for years. However, disk I/O is non-synchronous by default, which is less reliable for transaction based operations, and can produce a corrupted filesystem after a system crash or power failure.
[/quote]