Re: state or future of LFS?

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:41:50PM +0000, Andrew Doran wrote:
> 
> To qualify the above, I think LFS is a neat idea and I would very much like
> NetBSD to have a working LFS implementation, one that:
> 
> - demonstrates a real benefit over UFS (be it integrity or performance or ..)
> - maintains integrity with write-back caching storage [snip]

If LFS worked -- and I don't think the LFS code currently in our tree
will ever work -- it would address both the points above neatly by
performing just as well with write-through as write-back cache.  That
is a lot of the point of LFS: you can hand the disk a stream of only
optimally sized writes and avoid nasty caching issues entirely.

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon                                        
tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost
    "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX
     prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong
     segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper