From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [192.168.2.146] ([108.95.88.138]) by ewsd; Sun Oct 20 11:26:54 EDT 2019
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [9front] hjfs
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 11:26:52 -0400
References: <c9fc6f3a-da4a-40a3-b896-4f93fb5158ee@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c9fc6f3a-da4a-40a3-b896-4f93fb5158ee@www.fastmail.com>
To: 9front@9front.org
Message-Id: <8DF3982C-DE5E-46A7-BD87-067A9D34DF95@stanleylieber.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17A878)
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: generic open table enhancement out-scaling database 

9front.org/cat-v.org run on hjfs:

- everything is one partition.
- 4kb blocks (cwfs defaults to 16kb).
- dump is triggered manually (cwfs is hardcoded at 5am).
- fragmentation.

my unscientific anecdotal claim is that cwfs is faster, but hjfs is more fle=
xible and forgiving of resource constraints such as limited disk space and t=
he inability or unwillingness to babysit cache/dump as the physical disk fil=
ls up.

sl