chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/07/91)
Many people have given their opinions about the quality (or lack
thereof) of Everex's implementation of the fast file system.
So what's a new installer to do? Is the FFS reliable enough for a
root partition? How about a /u partition? I need to know soon...
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
"Most of my code is written by myself. That is why so little gets done."
-- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubinjohn@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (02/09/91)
In article <27B16F3A.26B6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Is the FFS reliable enough for a root partition? How about a /u partition? I've been running the ESIX FFS on a combined root/usr, a /usr2, and a /usr/spool/news partition for about 8 months now with no data-threatening problems. But I do have a UPS on my system, so it never goes down unexpectedly. It does have two problems that I'm aware of (I'm sure there are more): if you run out of inodes, the system panics; and you can't successfully [f]stat() a named pipe to determine the number of bytes in the pipe. I've reported both to ESIX and gotten no bug fixes, or promises thereof. There is also a problem when you're using the BSD mode of the FFS (which gives you long filenames) in that the system directory reading routines will not find all of the files in a directory. I've never used the BSD mode, but others in this newsgroup have. Another note: if you use the S51K filesystem, it has the "missing inode bug." -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
seg@ingres.com (scott e garfinkle) (02/12/91)
In article <27B16F3A.26B6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >So what's a new installer to do? Is the FFS reliable enough for a >root partition? How about a /u partition? I need to know soon... Well, if you stick to the Adaptec controller and a Maxtor drive and don't use the BSD fs type (255 character filenames), it seems to be pretty stable for both root and user partitions. Any other combinations, though, is pretty deadly. Oh yeah, make sure you don't run out of inodes on the fs either -- that causes kernel panics. -scott e. garfinkle
bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.170922.3899@ingres.Ingres.COM> seg@ingres.com (scott e garfinkle) writes: >Well, if you stick to the Adaptec controller and a Maxtor drive and >don't use the BSD fs type (255 character filenames), it seems to be pretty >stable for both root and user partitions. Any other combinations, though, >is pretty deadly. Oh yeah, make sure you don't run out of inodes on the >fs either -- that causes kernel panics. Well, I have been running the FFS for all my partitions since last summer without any problems. I am using an UltraStor 12F controller with Maxtor disks. Fortunately (it seems) I have not had an occasion (yet) to run out of inodes. -- Bob Willcox ...!{rutgers|ames}!cs.utexas.edu!romp!rancor!bob Phone: 512 258-4224
jjohnson@peyote.cactus.org (Jeff Johnson) (02/12/91)
In article <27B16F3A.26B6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Many people have given their opinions about the quality (or lack >thereof) of Everex's implementation of the fast file system. > >So what's a new installer to do? Is the FFS reliable enough for a >root partition? How about a /u partition? I need to know soon... I have been running ESIX FFS (SYSV compatible filenames) on all partitions since November without any problems attributable to FFS. I am even running on a WD1006V-SR2 RLL controller with 2 CDC Wren II MFM drives. I do not have a news or mail feed on the box, so the file systems aren't stressed from that. But I do play with Roell's X11R4 a fair bit and compile almost every utility known to Usenet. -- Jeff Johnson 10926 Jollyville #1420, Austin, TX 78759 Computer Consultant (512) 343-0675 (512) 750-UNIX jjohnson@peyote.cactus.org {uunet|uiucuxc}!cs.utexas.edu!peyote!jjohnson