Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:25:33 +1100 From: jonathan michaels <jon@caamora.com.au> To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD - A User's Point of View Message-ID: <19990124212533.B17658@caamora.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199901240949.BAA17434@implode.root.com>; from David Greenman on Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:49:14AM -0800 References: <19990124201556.E36690@freebie.lemis.com> <199901240949.BAA17434@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:49:14AM -0800, David Greenman wrote: > >>> I'd be a whole lot happier if people wouldn't make statements like > >>> this. If it's evil, explain. If you don't know any good reasons, > >>> don't spread misinformation. > >> > >> The Linux filesystem, or ext2fs, if I'm not mistaken by default caches > >> writes to the disk. If the machine should suddenly go down, power > >> failure, unexpected crash, etc..., this information doesn't make it back > >> to the disk. I've known many a Linux user who has lost _entire_ file > >> systems due to this. > > > >UFS does this too. > > Uh, he's talking about metadata, and no FFS does not cache metadata > writes by default. we, those on comp..freebsd.misc have had this discussion before, please don;t tell terry were on again for 12 rounds. its not terry i an worried about its teh rest of the people who had such convincing opinion about why he was so wrong. otherwise it was a very interesting discussion, i learnt a lot, just to keep up. > >> It surprises me that the Linux vendors don't turn this 'feature' off by > >> default. They could include in the doc's an explanation of why it's > >> turned off and give the users instructions on how to turn it back on, if > >> they like. > > > >I don't know if it's possible to turn it off in Linux. You can't turn > >it off in UFS either. In fact, the manner in which disk writes are > >cached is pretty central to FreeBSD's performance. > > Actually, prior to softupdates, FreeBSD's filesystem performance wasn't > very good compared to ext2fs for the very reason that ext2fs is "fast and > loose" by defering metadata writes. This has the downside of making ext2fs > filesystem integrity unreliable in the face of a system crash or power > failure. FFS does not have this problem, but is much slower as a result. ok to laod gun, just please don't shoot just yet. is this softupdates teh same as a journaling filesystem, if not is freebsd going to evolve such a creature ? what would teh arguments be one way ot the other, please. regards jonathan -- =============================================================================== Jonathan Michaels PO Box 144, Rosebery, NSW 1445 Australia ===========================================================<jon@caamora.com.au> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990124212533.B17658>