Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:10:33 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Don Wilde <Don@Silver-Lynx.com>, Szilveszter Adam <sziszi@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: An interesting read... Message-ID: <20010614221032.A85523@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010614131515.27518H-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:16:55PM -0400 References: <3B28C42D.3278A85A@Silver-Lynx.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010614131515.27518H-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:16:55PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > 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)? I vaguely recall a discussion of this very same thing in one of the freebsd lists, and the most important argument against having softupdates enabled by default on all filesystems (or all, except root; small difference) was that this way we would be sacrifizing part of the reliability of a 'default installation'. -giorgos 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?20010614221032.A85523>