Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe performance problems

[Brian Buhrow <buhrow%nfbcal.org@localhost>]

        Hello.  Well, to each his own, but for comparison, I have a system
running 5.1 withthe the latest namei changes with a 13TB filesystem which,
if fsck needs to run, takes less than an hour to complete.  I've found 5.1
to be very stable, and so haven't had to worry about the penalty of running
fsck after a crash very often.  I've found raidframe to be invaluable in my
installations, and to have WAPBL be broken in 6.x in conjunction with
raidframe seems like a pretty big deturrent for me.