Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kas!rhealey
From: rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga
Subject: Re: UFS file systems
Message-ID: <104@kas.helios.mn.org>
Date: 24 Jun 91 16:39:13 GMT
References: <1308@creatures.cs.vt.edu> <1952ff8c.ARN1022@cbmami.UUCP>
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN
Lines: 24

In article <1952ff8c.ARN1022@cbmami.UUCP> jason@cbmami.UUCP writes:
>> Hi there!  Sometime ago I caught the tail end of a discussion wherein
>> someone mentioned that UFS file systems on v1.1 shouldn't be used and
>> that users ought to wait until v2.0 comes out.  I'd appreciate it if
>> someone would e-mail me the reasons for this.  I'm currently migrating
>> several file systems from A/UX and I need the UFS long filenames.

	As a man who took his filesystems into his own hands...

	The official reason for avoiding ufs in 1.1 is that it CAN panic
	the kernel if your inode/second ratio gets too high, i.e.
	unbatching or expiring news.... I use /home for my source code
	and home directory. I have yet to panic 1.1 due to ufs. So,
	if the filesystem can keep inode usage to a slow pace, you
	should be safe. I'd be wary of making a ufs partition a fileserver
	area though, the inode use could be fast enough to cause problems.

	I'd try it for a while and see how it works, due to the nature
	of the problem, your milage will most certainly vary. It depends
	totally on the usage characteristics from what I've heard.

	C= may correct my simplistic interpretation of the problem.

		-Rob