UFS filesystem size limit

[Hiten Pandya]

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:

As far as recovery after a crash is involved, clearly nothing beats 
journalling, and i have to say that performancewise, i have the 
impression that Linux journalled filesystems do *very* well
compared to FreeBSD, or at least reiserfs shines when managing a lot of 
small files like a news spool and xfs for streaming large files, when
BSD UFS performs well in the medium case.


Don't compare experimental filesystems with UFS :-) But seriously, the
structure of JFS and XFS is very different from UFS, e.g. the use of
btrees for almost anything. That makes them more suitable for some
operations, but horrible for others. It depends on how big your
directories are, how big your files are and all that. There is no
perfect filesystem after all. As you said, the nice thing about UFS is
that it performs well in all cases.
Joerg
Umm.  UFS performs well in all cases is a relative statement.  According 
to todays standards in the commercial environments for data recovery after 
crash, it does not do that well.

As I was saying, once Matt and I are *thorough* with the BUF/BIO system 
and finishing journaling, we will have a lot more to say about this, in 
terms of practicality.

					-Hiten