From owner-freebsd-stable Sun May 27 20:30:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from point.osg.gov.bc.ca (point.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.102.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA08037B43C for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 20:30:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by point.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) id UAA15513; Sun, 27 May 2001 20:29:19 -0700 Received: from passer.osg.gov.bc.ca(142.32.110.29) via SMTP by point.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpda15510; Sun May 27 20:29:04 2001 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by passer.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.11.2/8.9.1) id f4S3SwB35918; Sun, 27 May 2001 20:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from UNKNOWN(10.1.2.1), claiming to be "cwsys.cwsent.com" via SMTP by passer9.cwsent.com, id smtpdZ35916; Sun May 27 20:28:42 2001 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cwsys.cwsent.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) id f4S3SJ602648; Sun, 27 May 2001 20:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105280328.f4S3SJ602648@cwsys.cwsent.com> Received: from localhost.cwsent.com(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "cwsys" via SMTP by localhost.cwsent.com, id smtpdfG2644; Sun May 27 20:27:31 2001 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group X-Sender: schubert To: kar_alerts@mglorysb.com Cc: Evan S , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates + hw.ata.wc In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 May 2001 01:08:17 -0000." <01052801081701.07054@svr.mgsb.domain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 20:27:31 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <01052801081701.07054@svr.mgsb.domain>, K Karthik writes: > I am using softupdates + hw.ata.wc=1 (now from loader.conf) for months with > no problems. I have UPS for my servers. Why use softupdates then? You may as well mount your filesystems async. If your primary concern is performance, not reliability, async is the way to go. According to a paper on Softupdates I read, async is about 3% faster than softupdates. Any systems I manage drawing power from a UPS have WC turned off and use softupdates. I've seen too many instances where human error has negated the effect of UPS. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/Alpha Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC > > On Sunday 27 May 2001 16:21, Evan S wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hello, > > > > Are there any adverse effects if you have both softupdates and hw.ata.wc > > enabeled? > > > > Thanks, > > > > - ------------------------------------------ > > Evan Sarmiento | GPG id: 9D0BDB6C > > ems@open-root.org | http://sekt7.org/~ems/ > > - ------------------------------------------ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (SunOS) > > Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 > > > > iEYEARECAAYFAjsRKacACgkQa7CFsJ0L22xKZQCgnDEX8CSkgGw2jJjTS3Rqg/su > > cZIAnjerBCzfQE+8y3z/g2bYWY8BpxGJ > > =xJiA > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message