Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:16:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Don Wilde <Don@Silver-Lynx.com> Cc: Szilveszter Adam <sziszi@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu>, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: An interesting read... Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010614131515.27518H-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <3B28C42D.3278A85A@Silver-Lynx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Don Wilde wrote: > Szilveszter Adam wrote: > > > > The tests (as usual for lab tests) were not necessarily based on real-life > > situations (eg writing etc 10000 files in a directory) but they still give > > some hints, and this is all such benchmarks are good for. > > Once again, we are the victims of "out of the box testing." We must > reinforce that FBSD OotB is designed for max stability and ruggedness, > noty optimal performance. When you make speed tradeoffs, you lose > stability. Not every IT department is smart enough to power their > async-mounted net system with a Best Power Level 9... One of the frequent responses to poor performance results on FreeBSD is "Why don't you turn on soft updates?". I think a fair answer to that is "Well, it wasn't on by default." What is our current argument against having soft updates on by default, with the exception of the root file system (and instability on -CURRENT)? When soft updates settles down again, I'd be tempted to have sysinstall simply turn on soft updates automatically for all non-root file systems unless the user toggles it off again. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services 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?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010614131515.27518H-100000>