Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:08:06 +0100 From: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> To: "Martin Hepworth" <maxsec@gmail.com> Cc: Atom Powers <atom.powers@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Large File System? Message-ID: <eeef1a4c0608090408l2f5582d8p30e73775699da979@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <72cf361e0608081151p68feb6b2lf8badd518cf46a9c@mail.gmail.com> References: <df9ac37c0608071513n7fdfc928r9d1aa3b9e8edfaec@mail.gmail.com> <ygfzmegm97g.fsf@dominion.borderworlds.dk> <df9ac37c0608071636j2f28bc6en66e985d528e8d85f@mail.gmail.com> <eeef1a4c0608080117r22d05716x1e623dd6ee2cf573@mail.gmail.com> <72cf361e0608081151p68feb6b2lf8badd518cf46a9c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/08/06, Martin Hepworth <maxsec@gmail.com> wrote: > Softupdates are the FreeBSD equivalent. From my point of view they perform > better than a traditional journaling FS (do a google search for the original > usenix papers on these). > Journalling means not having to fsck the file system in the event of an unclean shutdown. So it's wrong to describe softupdates as equivalent. It's not. I also find they speed up I/O quite alot, esp for fast changing filesystems > like mail spools. > Certainly I have found using softupdates to be considerably faster than without. martin > Frem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eeef1a4c0608090408l2f5582d8p30e73775699da979>