From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Mar  7 20:37:02 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA19635
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 20:37:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA19629
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 20:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.3/8.6.9) id PAA09045; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:34:38 +1100
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:34:38 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199703080434.PAA09045@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, terry@lambert.org
Subject: Re: Hard Link Count too small!
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jez@netcraft.co.uk
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> I have some POSIX performance tests that do this several times.  They
>> take too long.  They take much too long if the filesystem is not async
>> mounted.
>
>They must not be very POSIX dependent, or they would fail from the
>"shall mark for update"/"shall update" discrepancies introduced by
>the async mount.  An async mounted FS is not POSIX compliant.  An

Wrong.

Bruce