}On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:15:56AM -0500, Tracy J. Di Marco White wrote:
}> The idea was to have a central fileserver at home, I'm planning to keep
}> NetBSD's source trees on it, as well as storing all our CDs in mp3 format,
}> and basically anything else we find that we want to keep.  Given our lack
}> of anything to back up something that large in a reasonable amount of
}> time (DLT/AIT is still a little pricey) we thought a journal/log based
}> filesystem would be a good thing.  We're planning to back up things that
}> would be hard to replace, but the mp3s could be easily replicated from
}> the CD collection (all it takes it time, after all), source trees can
}> be grabbed again, etc.  I convinced my husband NetBSD/LFS would be
}> something to try with our new drives, the machine had been running
}> Linux with ext2fs on the old 2GB drive.  Generally we're not looking
}> at stress testing LFS.
}
}Why would a journal/log based filesystem be more reliable ?

My husband thought it would be better.  He's started using one of the
Linux journaling filesystems on his laptop, and his reasoning was such
that given the testing he's doing, he ends up power cycling it semi
regularly, he figured that the journaling file system would leave him
much less vulnerable to corruption.

}From people working with True64 or irix, it's worse because Digital or SGI
}doesn't provide a tool to repair the fs is something got really from.

I work with Tru64, and I've been running ADVfs for more than 3 years on
multiple systems with no problems.  So I haven't had to repair the FS.

}At last with LFS we have a fsck. But I would still trust better ffs, even
}when the known LFS bugs will be corrected.

I had thought to use FFS+softdep, but my husband thought a journaling
filesystem would be much safer.  I wanted to use NetBSD on it, and so
I proposed LFS. compromise.  I'm really not that knowledgeable about
what a log/journal based file system would gain you.

Tracy J. Di Marco White
Project Vincent Systems Manager
gendalia@iastate.edu