On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 03:20:39PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> With a data-reorganizing cleaner (even a file-coalescing cleaner is a good
> start) LFS's read performance for random-read workloads can equal that of
> FFS, which basically removes the only reason to not use it.

I can think of two others:

* the first stage of our two-stage bootblocks has block numbers of the 2nd one
hardcoded into it by the installboot program. You simply can't use a data
moving FS like LFS with that.

* if you want to be able to _erase_ or _overwrite_ (rather than unlink or 
replace) data, LFS is a bad idea, too. E.g., PGP users should be warned.

[Of course, if you're really serious about security, you need to never write
 cleartext to the disk at all, and sort of an army to protect your life machine
 from physical access. What was the last time I told the story about that
 guard at the NSA PDP11?]

Regards,
	-is