From owner-freebsd-fs Tue Sep 23 11:10:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA24751 for fs-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roguetrader.com (brandon@cold.org [206.81.134.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24743 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (brandon@localhost) by roguetrader.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01082 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:11:03 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:11:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Brandon Gillespie To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Known problems with async ufs? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Just curious, I have gotten the general impression that async UFS is unstable, simply because everybody says you really want to use sync UFS, which is horribly slower than async ufs. If your BOX is on a UPS, and you are generally assured that nothing is going to cause it to simply 'go down', why WOULDNT you want to run async on ALL filesystems? What problems are there with it? -Brandon Gillespie