From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 28022 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2022 04:18:06 -0000
Received: from 4ess.inri.net (216.126.196.42)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Mar 2022 04:18:06 -0000
Received: from vultr.musolino.id.au ([45.76.123.158]) by 4ess; Wed Mar  9 23:13:06 -0500 2022
Received: from 203.53.188.82 ([203.53.188.82]) by vultr; Thu Mar 10 15:12:49 +1100 2022
Message-ID: <186AB882D78934A255DE8AD336826265@musolino.id.au>
To: 9front@9front.org
From: Alex Musolino <alex@musolino.id.au>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 14:42:48 +1030
In-Reply-To: <CA089F93C2C2DF3B14F6A82E3D06952F@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: full-stack full-stack-aware table 
Subject: Re: [9front] new user
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

> is it worth using hjfs vs cjfs.  Not sure of the trade off after I
> switched?

The main benefit of hjfs(4) would seem to me to be its ability to work
with small disks.  Running cwfs(4) on a 10GB VPS is a non-starter.  I
think you can run cwfs(4) in a cache-only mode in such a situation,
but then you lose the dump.  With hjfs(4) you can have it both ways.