Author Archives: maru

Lessfs-1.1.0-beta6 is now available for download. This release brings much improved read performance. Lessfs-1.1.0-beta6 should be the last beta release. When no bugs are reported the coming week this code will be released as 1.1.0. People who would like to … Continue reading →

Lessfs-1.1.0-beta4 is now available for download. This release improves write performance when writes are done with small block sizes. The graph below displays the write performance of XFS, the fastest filesystem that is available for Linux and all other de-duplicating … Continue reading →

This version of lessfs now comes with a ‘per hash’ lock which protects a hash / data chunk while it is still being written to disk. The way this is done does not effect performance because it is highly granular. … Continue reading →

This release appears to be stable. Please let me know if you can prove otherwise.

Lessfs-1.1.0-beta1 has been removed from Sourceforge since it introduced a critical bug. A new version will be uploaded shortly.

This release fixes a number of mostly minor but nevertheless very annoying bugs.

Lessfs-1.1.0 has a number of advantages over Lessfs-1.0.x. To name some of the new features: The cache layer has been improved. The result is much better overall performance. Especially when writing to lessfs with a small block size. Lessfs now … Continue reading →

CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT With the release of version 1.0.8 lessfs has become pretty stable and is used by many people over the globe. It is therefore becoming more important not to change the lessfs-1.0x code beyond patching the … Continue reading →

Users who are planning to upgrade from earlier lessfs versions without transaction support should only use this version when they use the file_io backend. You will loose data when you upgrade an older lessfs version to lessfs-1.0.4..lessfs-1.0.7 when you use … Continue reading →

This release fixes a problem where data copied from windows to lessfs (samba) would show the wrong nr of blocks. This would result in du reporting wrong disk usage numbers.